Author Topic: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)  (Read 938990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,088
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: New JSS
« Reply #725 on: March 09, 2011, 16:26:17 »
First post on the subject here--six months ago:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17282.msg978257.html#msg978257

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 09:22:32 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 454,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,911
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: New JSS
« Reply #726 on: March 09, 2011, 19:30:04 »
Navy considers modified German and Spanish designs for new supply ship

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The Canadian navy is looking for consultants to help adapt foreign designs for the replacement of its 40-year-old supply ships.

The request for professional services, issued by the Public Works Department this week, signals a major turn in the shipbuilding program, first begun by the Liberals seven years ago.

The consultants will be asked to assess the risks and cost of altering current German and Spanish military supply ship designs to Canadian needs ....
Here's the new MERX listing (compared to the one issued in October of last year):
Quote
.... Canada has a requirement to assess two NATO Navy ship designs to
determine their viability in relation to the Canadian Navy
operational requirements for naval fleet replenishment SHIPS:
    a.    the Berlin Class; and
    b.    the Cantabria Class

Canada intends to award two separate contracts, one to
ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. (TKMSC) and the other to
Navantia, S.A. (Navantia) to conduct Risk Reduction Design
Studies (RRDS) for each design. This will enable Canada to
ascertain the feasibility and affordability of adapting these
designs to meet Canadian requirements. Canada is deploying a
team of government representatives to shipyards in Germany and
Spain to perform the RRDS and a follow-on Detailed Design
Activity (DDA).

Canada is seeking professional services of two qualified
personnel to provide consulting, ship production engineering and
translation services and support to the JSS PMO for the RRDS
activity at facilities in Germany and Spain and, if required, in
Canada, who are fluent in English and the native language of the
ship designer (one in German and one in Spanish).

This RFP may result in two Contracts. The Bidder may bid on one
or both requirements (Spain and/or Germany).

The initial term will be for a period of eight ( 8 ) months from
date of award of Contract. Support Services in Canada will be
required on an "as and when requested" basis, for up to ten
days (per person) starting on or around the beginning of May
2011. Core services in Germany and Spain will be required for a
period of six (6) months starting on or around the beginning of
June 2011, with an option to renew for up to six (6) additional
months to provide additional support for RRDS and/or for DDA ....
A bit more in the attached Statement of Work.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,088
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #727 on: March 09, 2011, 20:28:28 »
So in fact rather than JSSs they will be really AORs

Quote
naval fleet replenishment SHIPS

And lord knows when a shipbuilding contract will be signed and when a ship will eventually be in service.  On...and on...and...

This whole endeavour is becoming a scandal.  All because of the insistence by Canadian gov'ts (both stripes) first that ships be designed in Canada (now abandoned in this case, for the CCG, and one has heard for the A/OPS), and second that they be built here.

Cue "As Time Goes By"; play it Stephen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qujHKmU95o&feature=related

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 08:41:12 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Kalatzi

  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 1,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 248
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #728 on: March 09, 2011, 21:12:02 »
well if it is a naming coantest . .

HMCS Better Very Late Than Never

HMCS Broken Procurement System

Canadian warship procurement has been scandalous for decades, IMHO,   at least as far back as the tribals.

The money spent on  could design could be far better used, unless we choose to export. Good luck with that.

The South Koreans seem to doing good things, eg FFX Frigates
Best Wishes to Francois Hollande, France’s president nicknamed “Meccano-builder” for his ability to bridge the endless personal and ideological disputes, a process he once likened to

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,004
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #729 on: March 09, 2011, 21:40:01 »
So in fact rather than JSSs they will be really AORS:
Well if thats the case its been one of the smartest decisions regarding the JSS in a long time.

Quote
And lord knows when a shipbuilding contract will be signed and when a ship will eventually be in service.  On...and on...and...

This whole endeavour is becoming a scandal.  All because of the insistence by Canadian gov'ts (both stripes) first that ships be designed in Canada (now abandoned in this case, for the CCG, and one has heard for the A/OPS), and second that they be built here.

Cue "As Time Goes By"; play it Stephen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qujHKmU95o&feature=related

Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa

Well at least its still on the Government radar, I would be more concerned if there wasn't any mention at all.

Quote
The South Koreans seem to doing good things, eg FFX Frigates
Lets wait for the class goes into service before applauding the South Koreans as the frigate maybe a dismal failure.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 21:44:59 by Ex-Dragoon »
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #730 on: March 09, 2011, 23:41:26 »
Maybe our procurement process is so tortured because we have invented this need to make everyone happy. Quebec, the west, Atlantic provinces, first nations, environment, the list goes on and on. Just once I wish the government would have the balls to tell the special interest groups to bugger off, we are going to get a platform that is what we want, quickly and at the best price. We should also cut about 1/3 of the oversight requirements that satisfy nobody but the blood sucking vampires at Treasury Board. Maybe we could cut about 10 years from the 15 to 20 year process that we have now.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 194,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,662
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #731 on: March 09, 2011, 23:45:01 »
Maybe our procurement process is so tortured because we have invented this need to make everyone but the Navy happy. Quebec, the west, Atlantic provinces, first nations, environment, the list goes on and on.

Fixed that for you....
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Kalatzi

  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 1,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 248
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #732 on: March 10, 2011, 00:57:30 »
Well if thats the case its been one of the smartest decisions regarding the JSS in a long time.

Well at least its still on the Government radar, I would be more concerned if there wasn't any mention at all.
Lets wait for the class goes into service before applauding the South Koreans as the frigate maybe a dismal failure.
Best Wishes to Francois Hollande, France’s president nicknamed “Meccano-builder” for his ability to bridge the endless personal and ideological disputes, a process he once likened to

Offline Kalatzi

  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 1,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 248
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #733 on: March 10, 2011, 01:05:12 »
re: my previous

The comment on waiting to see if the south korean class was a success was a good one.

We no longer design our own combat aircraft

We no longer design our own combat vehicles - witness the ram or the bobcat

A local design could still be a dud.

I also encountered another thread that theres hope for the surface combatant being a partnership, pun.

Best Wishes to Francois Hollande, France’s president nicknamed “Meccano-builder” for his ability to bridge the endless personal and ideological disputes, a process he once likened to

Offline NinerSix

    is getting the itch to deploy.

  • Has been
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 316,391
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,045
  • Retired!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #734 on: March 10, 2011, 08:09:08 »
Way out of my lane: the Berlin class looks interesting. Is it big enough? Wiki shows it is 4000tons lighter than the Protecteur.
The process is not the mission.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #736 on: March 10, 2011, 11:08:42 »
Well I guess we should be thankful that Bombardier doesn't produce a long in the tooth 4th generation fighter aircraft that they would be flogging to the Air Force instead of getting a truly modern aircraft.

It would make where/how to get ships look easy.

I can hear the howls from the Bloc from here.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 194,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,662
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #737 on: March 10, 2011, 12:28:33 »
Well I guess we should be thankful that Bombardier doesn't produce a long in the tooth 4th generation fighter aircraft that they would be flogging to the Air Force instead of getting a truly modern aircraft.

It would make where/how to get ships look easy.

I can hear the howls from the Bloc from here.

Actually - wait for it.  With all the political howling over the F-35, I wouldn't be surprised if, 25 years from now, we finally replace the CF-118s with a Bombardier passenger plane (with engines built by Bell) with weapons pods strapped to the wings....
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #738 on: March 10, 2011, 15:23:59 »
That is a scary thought but the PBO report released today will give lots of bluster points for the media and opposition to use.

I have downloaded a copy and a quick read says it has a most unique way of estimating future costs based on aircraft weight in Kilos and uses a 30 year period rather than the 20 years . . .  good way to get a big number & front page headlines !!

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 454,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,911
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
"Shipyard extols domestic work"
« Reply #739 on: March 11, 2011, 05:57:26 »
This from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
Quote
Canada should not adapt foreign designs to replace its 40-year-old supply ships, says the man who represents over 1,000 workers at Halifax Shipyard.

The navy is looking for consultants to assess the risks and cost of altering current German and Spanish military supply-ship designs to Canadian needs. They are also being told to be ready to assist federal officials with detailed drawings.

"No matter what way you slice the pie, its Canadian tax dollars leaving Canada to go to another country to help them out in an economic crisis when we’re in our own," Jamie Vaslet of the CAW/Marine Workers Federation, said Thursday.

"Made in Canada is not a bad name, so designed in Canada is not a bad name, either. We designed and built some of, if not the best, world-class frigates."

If the supply ships are designed in another country, intellectual rights accompany that design, Vaslet said. He pointed to HMCS Chicoutimi, one of the Canadian navy’s British-built submarines, which was sidelined by a fatal fire in 2004.

"When the Chicoutimi was in the Halifax Shipyard, we could have gone to Canadian Tire and bought a nut and bolt to do a job on that submarine for $1.29 and we paid $1,500 taxpayers’ dollars for it to come three weeks later from Britain," Vaslet said.

"Where in anybody’s logical mind does that make sense? And why would we want to get into the same thing again when we’re going to build supply ships?"

The Harper government recently nixed a co-operative effort with the British on the design of new frigates after an outcry from the shipbuilding industry.

"At the same time that they’re saying that, they’re going to another country for the design on a supply ship, so it’s a shell game that the Tories are playing," Vaslet said.

Three joint support ships, announced as part of the 2004 budget and confirmed by the Conservatives when they took power in 2006, have been the subject of discussions, drawings and revisions as naval planners struggled to stay within the $2.9-billion budget.

The government said it wanted a ship that could resupply warships, haul army equipment and act as a floating hospital or command post when necessary.

The Conservatives hit the reset button on the program in the summer of 2008, sending everyone back to the drawing board, because shipyard bids exceeded what had been budgeted.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 06:39:08 by milnews.ca »
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline RV

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 108
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #740 on: March 11, 2011, 06:34:47 »
This whole endeavour is becoming a scandal.  All because of the insistence by Canadian gov'ts (both stripes) first that ships be designed in Canada (now abandoned in this case, for the CCG, and one has heard for the A/OPS), and second that they be built here.

Where did you hear that?  CCG FRV - Canadian design (after foreign procurement failure), CCG OOSV - Canadian design, AOPS - Canadian design.  There were two Finnish ice design consultants on AOPS, but otherwise all Canadian.

The CCG midshore is the lone exception and didn't really work out that well in terms of design choice.

The AOR/JSS could have been successfully designed in Canada, but they went about the contracting in a bizarre manner and thus excluded some of the best candidates.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,888
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,046
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #741 on: March 11, 2011, 09:52:38 »
All I can say is that as a member who may have to serve on  the new ships someday I would like them to built by the best shipyard possible, using the highest standards possible. I don't give a hoot where its located,  Canada or elsewhere. Just give me the best equipment possible, please.  :salute:

I hate that our military procurement is used as some sort of employment/economic tool to win votes. Don't use the building of the equipment meant to increase my safety and survival in that manner please Mr. Government!
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,088
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #742 on: March 16, 2011, 09:45:35 »
Politics, politics, politics:

Shipbuilding means big regional politics and even bigger price tags
With the Navy and Coast Guard set to place big orders, who will win and who will lose?

http://embassymag.ca/page/view/navy-03-16-2011

Quote
With billions of dollars promised to the navy in the form of combat, patrol and support ships, the federal government pledged last June to form a "strategic partnership" with two Canadian shipyards to help carry these promises to fruition.

Forming these partnerships is key to the government's stated objective of firing up two sustainable and robust private shipbuilding clusters in Canada through which it can pipe its various big-ship requests. It's also part of its unstated objective of currying favour with key voters, say experts who follow the shipbuilding saga.

On Feb. 7, the government announced that five shortlisted companies—Davie Yards outside Quebec City; Irving Shipbuilding in Saint John, New Brunswick; Vancouver Shipyards in Vancouver; Kiewit Offshore Services in Milton, Ont.; and Seaway Marine & Industrial in St. Catharines, Ont.—have until July to submit their proposals.

That timeframe is far enough away for Conservatives to get an election out of the way, if that's in the cards. They will want to, because the politics behind the decision—both the potential boons and ramifications—are extremely significant.

"Really, the purpose of this national shipbuilding strategy is to guarantee regional employment," says Chris Madsen, an associate professor at the Royal Military College of Canada who specializes in maritime strategy and history.

A general consensus is that the biggest contenders now are Davie, Irving and Vancouver, meaning the East, Quebec and the West are in direct competition. Experts argue the three of these have the most going for them in terms of attracting the government's attention. Who will lose out?

Quebec

The most contentious issue is whether the government will go for Davie Yards situated near Quebec City, which is in bankruptcy protection but represents a strategic location in terms of electoral politics and history...

New Brunswick

Eastern Canada is more opposition-dominated than other areas of the country, meaning the Conservatives smell blood there.

In Defence Minister Peter MacKay's home province of Nova Scotia, only four of its eleven ridings are held by Conservative MPs, including Mr. MacKay, and prominent opposition members, both Liberal and NDP, hold several ridings around the Halifax area, historically a shipbuilding centre. The Liberal Defence critic Dominic Leblanc is also close by in eastern New Brunswick.

Giving the contract to Irving in Saint John would thus demonstrate to those voters unsure of whether to hand the Tories a bigger majority in the area that the party is serious about shipbuilding...

British Columbia

Out west it's a slightly different story. British Columbia is one of three Western "have" provinces, its economy recovering from the recession, its growth expected to slowly eliminate its budget deficit over the next few years. The Conservatives have MPs in a majority of ridings in the province. The demographics are different; there is less of an employment emergency... 

Other issues

While regional politics will most likely guarantee that the current strategy is carried out, experts argue selecting two major commercial shipyards will cost the Canadian taxpayer the most as well as proceed the slowest [emphasis added], and it's worth it for the government to consider the financial burden it's heaping on its citizens...

If there's anything experts agree on, it's that the current budgeted price is probably being low-balled, considering the level of uncertainty so far and the long-winded procurement process...

With the current tug-of-war going on between the navy and the government over how many expensive destroyers and frigates to build, compared to how many lower-cost patrol ships, and what capabilities they will have, the price tag is up in the air.


Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,088
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #743 on: March 17, 2011, 16:44:20 »
More of the bite-back:

Navy review of foreign ship designs gives builders the jitters
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/navy-review-foreign-ship-designs-gives-builders-jitters-20110216-134624-902.html

Quote
National Defence has been quietly urging the Canadian navy to explore offshore designs and solutions to its shipbuilding needs — causing jitters in a domestic industry struggling to survive.

Britain's parliamentary secretary for defence recently revealed that country was in discussions with Canada about participating in BAE Systems Inc.'s Global Combat Ship program, the Royal Navy's plan to replace its frigates.

The Harper government has refused to comment on the talks, other than to play them down as routine.

Defence sources say the navy also considered — but rejected — a British offer to sell Canada one of the Royal Navy's relatively new Bay-class transport ships, some of which will be sold or retired because of deep budget cuts.

The proposal was floated because the navy's supply-ship replacement program is in limbo, with no firm date established despite nearly a decade of planning, number-crunching and redesigns.

Naval planners were also told to look at French proposals and blueprints, despite extensive staff work put into Canadian warship requirements.

Buying designs offshore would be short-sighted, said Canada's shipbuilding association.

"I'm not sure there's any cost-saving in that at all. In fact, I would argue it would possibly be more expensive," warned the association's executive director Peter Cairns.

Government insiders describe the process the navy is going through, at the direction of the deputy minister of defence, as due diligence meant to justify an eventual submission to the Treasury Board...

The Canadian Auto Workers/Marine Workers Federation, which represents shipyard workers, told the Halifax Chronicle-Herald newspaper this week the talks with Britain threatened to destroy the shipbuilding strategy.

Cairns disagreed and said shipyards would still have work, but the larger industry, the one that has propelled Canadian maritime innovation for decades, would likely wither and die.

"It would be very short-sighted," he said.

Cairns said he would like to hear government ministers say the $35 billion in planned ship purchases will be "designed and built" in Canada.

Meanwhile the Aussies seem to have seen some light:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,99923.0.html

Chez nous:

How Slow Can One Procure Navy Ships, Part 2?
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=136

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,088
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #744 on: March 21, 2011, 10:26:30 »
Some sharp words from Defense Industry Daily:

Amphibious Ship For Sale: RFA Largs Bay   
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Amphibious-Ship-For-Sale-RFA-LArgs-Bay-06808/

Quote
The fate of a nearly-new British amphibious support ship, RFA Largs Bay, is all about timing.

Britain commissioned 4 of the 176m long, 16,200t Bay Class LSD amphibious ships to renew a very run-down capability. The new “Alternative Landing Ship Logistic” ships were built from the same base Enforcer template that produced the successful Dutch Rotterdam and Johann de Witt, and Spanish Galicia class programs. Britain ordered 4 of these ALSL/LSD-A ships into its Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and active use began with RFA Largs Bay’s commissioning in 2006. By 2011, however, Britain’s fiscal situation was so dire that a strategic review marked RFA Largs Bay for decommissioning in April 2011, after just a fraction of its 30+ year service life.

That was bad timing for Britain, but good timing for others...

Canada’s 2006 “Joint Support Ship” program was a proper mess by 2011,
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-issues-rfp-for-cdn-29b-joint-support-ship-project-updated-02392/
after failing to deliver amphibious support capabilities at an affordable cost. On the other hand, the Canadian DND was generally seen as far too hidebound, and its government as too paralyzed by the need for economic handouts in its military projects, to consider a Bay class bargain. They had also been burned before by used British ships, in the Oberon Class submarine deal.

Whatever the reason, the opportunity produced no apparent movement in Canada...

Ouch.  More:

Quote
March 16/11: Australian Minister for Defence Stephen Smith confirms that the government is bidding on RFA Largs Bay:

“Firstly, today, London time, we will formally enter a bid for the purchase of a large, heavy amphibious lift vessel, a Bay Class from the United Kingdom. I’ve spoken about this publicly before. But we’ll put our formal bid in today to purchase the vessel…. So we’re – we are very keen to pick up the Bay Class to cover that amphibious lift capability, and the C-17s have been a very useful asset for us, and getting another one will really help us in terms of our flexibility. So, very pleased with both of those initiatives occurring this week in terms of acquisitions.”

A subsequent Canberra Times report quotes the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, who estimates a price in the low $100 million region, for an almost-new ship that cost 2-3 times that much to build. Britain’s decision is expected in April 2011...

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 10:41:58 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline NinerSix

    is getting the itch to deploy.

  • Has been
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 316,391
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,045
  • Retired!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #745 on: March 21, 2011, 10:36:22 »
After the sub deal, I am a little skittish about buying ships from the UK. However, I can not help but feel like we are missing out on one hell of a fire sale.
The process is not the mission.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #746 on: March 21, 2011, 13:35:49 »
In my personal opinion, we are frigging idiots not to get one.  The only bigger idiots than ourselves are the Brits for getting rid of them so soon.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #747 on: March 21, 2011, 13:43:29 »
In my personal opinion, we are frigging idiots not to get one.  The only bigger idiots than ourselves are the Brits for getting rid of them so soon.

You are right. I have heard that the majority of the worlds population lives within a 100 miles of a coastline and the ability to have a mobile support platform is crucial to our ability to respond to crisis. Since it will be 15 years before we see a replacement for PRE and PRO, we need something in the interim.

Offline ironduke57

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 10,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 759
  • Death solves all problems. No man, no problem. J.S
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #748 on: April 01, 2011, 09:32:55 »
Just a side note: The hulk of our third Berlin class AOR named BONN (A 1413) should swim for the first time at the end of this month and then towed to Emden in May.

Regards,
ironduke57
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülow, 1870

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 454,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,911
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #749 on: April 04, 2011, 08:38:10 »
Remember the latest call for professional services (8 Nar 11 here)?

New bid deadline:  9 May 2011 - see attached.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter