Author Topic: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)  (Read 861958 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline canuck101

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,881
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #675 on: September 24, 2010, 06:20:34 »
Found this article interesting it is what the French are planning too build
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=114066

It seems to have everything the Canadian Government wants in our future ship.

Here is the English translation If the page comes up in French for you.

Proposed export and to replace the current tanker Navy, Brave is the new concept of logistics building designed by DCNS. Particularly versatile, this ship must meet a wide range of missions, ranging from fuel supplies (ships and aircraft) to the repair of equipment, possibly via the transport of soldiers and armored vehicles. Long by 195 meters and a width of 28 meters, displays a Brave displacement of 30,000 tons. It is therefore much larger and heavier than the oil-tanker Meuse and buildings of command and supply Var, Marne and Somme (157 meters, 18,000 tons).
The new logistics building DCNS aims to be very versatile and reconfigurable same. To this end it provides a modular rear area. As required, it can be used to store materials or hosting workshops. Indeed, the future French ships should not only replace the PR and the BCR, but also compensate for the disarmament, in 2009, building mobile support Loire and workshop building Jules Verne. The new BL will thus be able to have facilities capable of making repairs.
The rear area of the Brave has also been designed to serve at the reception of troops and equipment, including vehicles. Boarding and landing would be achieved through a side door. Compared to existing vessels, aircraft capabilities would be enhanced with a platform for the simultaneous implementation of two helicopters (and a double shed). Brave is, again, with a headquarters large enough for him to host a staff and run an operation.

Increased capacity

In terms of pure supply, the building must be able to provide naval forces it supports fuel, food and ammunition. Bunker design study for the Navy can reach 15,000 m3. As is already the case today, Brave should be able, at the same time, the replenishment of two ships alongside. It has to do two gantries and refueling capabilities for transferring heavy loads greater than those of existing boats. Behind the block bridge, two cranes to handle containers can be housed in a specific space.
To meet the international maritime regulations, Brave is a double-hulled ship designed to incorporate standards such as IMO MARPOL (pollution).
In late 2009, the Directorate General of Armament launched a scoping study to determine the needs and characteristics that will result in program called Fleet Logistics. " According to forecasts by the DGA, the construction of the first vessel to replace the Meuse, is expected in 2015 for delivery two years later. The target is for the moment, four units.

Serious competition for export

In addition to the domestic market, which could be the subject of cooperation with Great Britain, DCNS is also exported. Many Marines have, indeed, need to renew their fleet logistics buildings. In this regard, the competition will be severe for the French group, which did not deliver any ship of its kind since 1987 (the Somme in 1990, was conducted by shipyards of La Seyne-sur-Mer). In Europe, DCNS faces several competitors, starting with Italy's Fincantieri, which is currently completing two oil tanker for India. The Spanish Navantia is also positioning itself internationally with the Cantabria, just delivered to the Armada. While in Britain, BAE Systems, BMT Defence Services have submitted their design to the Royal Navy Aegir Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding sold its hybrid design of JSS (both tanker and ship projection) to the Dutch navy, awaiting delivery of the Karel Doorman in 2014. Finally, as this type of vessel is carried out according to civilian standards, Asian manufacturers are also serious competitors. Daewoo and Hyundai have, moreover, not hesitate to make an offer under the Military Afloat Reach program and Sustainability (MARS) in the UK

« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 06:25:41 by canuck101 »

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #676 on: September 24, 2010, 09:25:18 »
If I read the english translation correctly she has almost the same liquid cargo capacity as the PRO/PRE presently has.  Seems to be more of the same idea as the JSS.  I am still not keen on a swiss army knife ship, but as I have said before, anything new wouild  be welcome and better than status quo.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,576
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #677 on: October 01, 2010, 17:51:06 »
The US Navy getting a new supply ship:

The USNS Charles Drew -- the new 689-foot dry cargo ship that bears the name of the pioneering surgeon who created large, life-saving blood banks during World War II -- will achieve a milestone early Wednesday when the vessel leaves the NASSCO/General Dynamics yard for its first extensive sea trials.

Workers are scheduled to remove the $500 million ship's mooring lines at 7:45 a.m., enabling the Charles Drew to sail out of San Diego Harbor for 40 hours of rigorous testing far offshore, the company says. Two of Drew's children, Charlene Drew Jarvis and Sylvia Drew Ivie, are scheduled to be aboard for the departure.

"Preparing the ship to go to sea for the first time creates a sense of urgency, passion, determination and pride among the sea trial riders that would rival any team preparing for 'the big game,' " said Jason Mitchell, who oversaw the building of the ship. "This is the week that we’ve been preparing for over the last 20 months (since construction started). This is where the 'rubber meets the road.'"

The ship is one of the last Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships that NASSCO is scheduled to build for the Navy. The company will launch the USNS Washington Chambers in September, and it recently began work on a vessel that will be known as the Medgar Evers. And it will start on yet another Nayy cargo ship this fall. i]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/15/grsq-huge-nassco-ship-ready-sea-trials/


Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 73,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,569
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #678 on: October 02, 2010, 17:03:34 »
Logically shameless, or challenged?

Canadian shipyards can’t competitively build large civilian vessels–but the government insists they build naval ones
http://unambig.com/canadian-shipyards-cant-competitively-build-large-civilian-vessels-but-the-government-insists-they-build-naval-ones/

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

Offline GK .Dundas

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 18,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 456
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #679 on: October 02, 2010, 20:14:21 »
The US Navy getting a new supply ship:

The USNS Charles Drew -- the new 689-foot dry cargo ship that bears the name of the pioneering surgeon who created large, life-saving blood banks during World War II -- will achieve a milestone early Wednesday when the vessel leaves the NASSCO/General Dynamics yard for its first extensive sea trials.

Workers are scheduled to remove the $500 million ship's mooring lines at 7:45 a.m., enabling the Charles Drew to sail out of San Diego Harbor for 40 hours of rigorous testing far offshore, the company says. Two of Drew's children, Charlene Drew Jarvis and Sylvia Drew Ivie, are scheduled to be aboard for the departure.

"Preparing the ship to go to sea for the first time creates a sense of urgency, passion, determination and pride among the sea trial riders that would rival any team preparing for 'the big game,' " said Jason Mitchell, who oversaw the building of the ship. "This is the week that we’ve been preparing for over the last 20 months (since construction started). This is where the 'rubber meets the road.'"

The ship is one of the last Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships that NASSCO is scheduled to build for the Navy. The company will launch the USNS Washington Chambers in September, and it recently began work on a vessel that will be known as the Medgar Evers. And it will start on yet another Nayy cargo ship this fall. i]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/15/grsq-huge-nassco-ship-ready-sea-trials/
20 MONTHS ! From start to end product in the water You would think we're we planning a go it alone Mars expedition with all the planning  and money  and time and what do we have to show for  it all?.......Nothing! well except for a lot of paper.
The procurement system in this country seems to broke beyond repair .
How did we get here? More importantly how do we fix this?
"Norman. You know my policy on arming morons.If you arm one you have arm them all. Otherwise it 's just not sporting!"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,726
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #680 on: October 02, 2010, 20:36:37 »
Gord,

I don't think you can compare the situation of a ship that is the last of a number of a standard design (and a relatively simple one at that) being built in a running shipyard, with all the jigs prepared and practiced yard workers, with the situation of the first of a new design (the complexity of which can and should be debated) in an unprepared, undermanned yard loaded with new hires .

Yes, we do seem to be screwing up on writing specs, but that problem doesn't seem to be unique to Canada, and it is a crime that we don't have functioning GOVERNMENT yards capable of building GOVERNMENT ships. 

I am a died in the wool capitalist, and I have no problem with buying vessels from the private sector, when it makes sense, or of shore, when it makes sense.

But I am reminded that for centuries His/Her Majesty's Ships were built in His/Her Majesty's Dockyards.  Successfully.

Cheers, Chris.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 185,471
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,083
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #681 on: October 02, 2010, 21:12:40 »
I think that I, like many other sailors, are growing weary of the "it's coming" tale we keep hearing.

Realizing that TFA and the guys on the sharp end have priority in a war, there's things that we have to make do without.

That said, it's pretty hard to take when we have ships in service celebrating their 40th anniversaries....and not an inch of steel cut on a replacement.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #682 on: October 04, 2010, 06:34:33 »
I think that I, like many other sailors, are growing weary of the "it's coming" tale we keep hearing.

Realizing that TFA and the guys on the sharp end have priority in a war, there's things that we have to make do without.

That said, it's pretty hard to take when we have ships in service celebrating their 40th anniversaries....and not an inch of steel cut on a replacement.

NS

My feelings exactly, except I am way past the weary stage.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,576
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #683 on: October 04, 2010, 10:41:54 »
20 MONTHS ! From start to end product in the water You would think we're we planning a go it alone Mars expedition with all the planning  and money  and time and what do we have to show for  it all?.......Nothing! well except for a lot of paper.
The procurement system in this country seems to broke beyond repair .
How did we get here? More importantly how do we fix this?

Scary when they think their procurement is to cumbersome. Mind you they have had some big failures as well.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #684 on: October 04, 2010, 11:38:49 »
Scary when they think their procurement is to cumbersome. Mind you they have had some big failures as well.

Now, now that's no way to speak of some former MNDs and PMs.  But seriously it hacks me off that solutions could be done quickly and reasonably if not for politics and pandering to some quarters.  For Christs sake as an example IIRC the P-51 was designed and a working prototype fabricated in less than 3 months.  Things can happed fast if there is some will and backbone behind it.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,576
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #685 on: October 04, 2010, 16:16:20 »
I believe it is the law of unintended consequences that defeats us. Ship building contracts are good for votes as they create a fair bit of domestic economic benefits. Also most politicians want to give the best bang for the buck to the people who serve on our behalf. The problem we have is we let the domestic infrastructure to design and build such vessel stagnant to the point where the only way to get good bang for the buck is to go offshore, this is not good for votes. Now if we were in a economic boom time, we could absorb some of the costs of rebuilding domestic capability, but we are not doing well economically, so we have a situation were there is not enough money to buy domestically and not enough political will/need to buy offshore. The subs had a strong argument as there never was a domestic naval sub building industry here (There has been significant exploration sub industry here) and it would have been insane to attempt to start one.
The current crop of politicians have inherited the dual problem of a rusting fleet that will soon not be able to put to sea without significant allied support and a domestic shipbuilding industry that is not really positioned to build the replacements. The politicians cannot put this issue off much longer, to complicate things, the other branches are full of worn out equipment adding to the burden. One hopes that the politicians are learning from this crisis of their own making. The fact that they are talking about long term planning is a good thing, as long as it is not a smokescreen to avoid a confrontation with reality.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 185,471
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,083
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #686 on: October 05, 2010, 20:10:06 »
The problem then Colin becomes a question of, will the military be able to maintain the capability in the face of poor long term planning by the politicians?

If it costs too much for the benefits returned, will they chop the capability instead of renewing it????

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 420,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,077
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Looking at German, Spanish Designs as Options
« Reply #687 on: October 08, 2010, 05:36:56 »
This today in MERX (highlights mine):
Quote
.... The Government has approved a new procurement approach whereby National Defence will explore adapting the designs of recently built naval fleet replenishment ships that are operating with other NATO Navies.

Based on information available in the public domain and information received from Allied Navies, National Defence has concluded that the following designs are the only candidates for adaptation:

    · The Berlin Class
    · The Cantabria Class


The Government intends to award two separate contracts, one to ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. (TKMS) and the other to Navantia, S.A. (Navantia), to conduct risk reduction studies to ascertain the feasibility of adapting these designs to meet Canadian requirements, to provide the historical cost of building these ships, and to deliver a proposal for the development of suitable modifications to their respective designs and the delivery of a data package for use by a Canadian shipyard to build the ships, a technology transfer agreement and the right for Canada to use the design and all data for the construction, use and in-service support of these ships.

If one of these designs is selected for the JSS, Canada will amend the contract with that designer to implement its proposal.


Accordingly, you are hereby notified that Canada intends to solicit bids from and negotiate contracts with TKMS and Navantia as described above. ....

More on link and in attached if link doesn't work.

More on:
- Berlin class replenishment ships here (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
- ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. here and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems here
- Pantino/Cantavia class replenishment ships here
- Navantia S.A. here
“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 Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 141,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,682
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #688 on: October 08, 2010, 08:39:38 »
Them there ships are AOR's my friends, not JSS's.

Have we (finally!) walked down the watering-down road far enough to get replacement AORs? I hope so.

Otherwise, to accommodate the now minimal additional requirements of the government (to turn them magically into JSS'), either of these designs could easily incorporate the "extra" ~ 30m section aft of the fuel tanks that I proposed  in a previous post  above at page 43 « Reply #642 on: July 21, 2010, 08:52:17 »:

 "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."


Seems to me reality is sinking in and that can only move us closer to replacements.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #689 on: October 08, 2010, 08:49:05 »
Maybe OGBD, but I won't hold my breath for sanity to hit the purse string pullers unless I want to look like my uniform colour.  Good ideas on the mods by the way.

Offline Snakedoc

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #690 on: October 08, 2010, 17:24:16 »
Them there ships are AOR's my friends, not JSS's.


My thoughts exactly as I looked through the specs, I guess we've come full circle once again and are forced to face reality.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,010
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #691 on: October 08, 2010, 18:07:24 »
Cannot say I am surprised then again I have been saying JSS was an out to lunch approach since that ugly acronym entered Canadian Naval terms.
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 NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 185,471
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,083
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #692 on: October 10, 2010, 07:38:17 »
Interestingly, both ships have space for about 500-ish tons of "other stores".

I'd be pleased to see steel cut on something new, and maybe if there is a split between the "JSS" and "AOR" it will allow at least ONE of them to go ahead.

Perhaps if we get AOR's as dedicated tankers, it means that there is consideration being given to the "BHS" as a supplement?

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline viper3ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • 170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #693 on: October 10, 2010, 09:21:05 »
I think a dedicated AOR is the way to go! Both the Berlin class and the Cantabria are proven ships. My preference is for  the Berlin class.We all know the German's make good stuff!! lol. Too bad the goverment can't pick up a couple of good used BHS like the USS Nassau and USS Peleliu which are soon to be retired.

Offline canuck101

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,881
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #694 on: October 10, 2010, 10:06:59 »
I say we get two Berlin class and if there is any money left over get two Endurance class landing platform dock ships  ;D

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 73,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,569
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #695 on: October 10, 2010, 10:12:38 »
BUT THERE IS NO MONEY---esp. with the F-35. and the planned Canadian Surface Combatant:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03884.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296901

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: October 10, 2010, 10:15:20 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 852
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #696 on: October 10, 2010, 10:13:46 »
Can a ship of this type/design be used in the Arctic and if so, what needs to be done to the hull and other systems to make it ice capable?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 73,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,569
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #697 on: October 10, 2010, 10:18:08 »
The 2006 JSS specs contained this:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=1958

Quote
...
Capability to navigate in first-year arctic ice...

I would assume that has now been abandoned.

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

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 852
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #698 on: October 10, 2010, 10:23:22 »
BUT THERE IS NO MONEY---esp. with the F-35. and the planned Canadian Surface Combatant:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03884.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4296901

Mark
Ottawa

F-35 for Canada = $16 Billion over twenty (20) years.  If  we can't afford that, we should pack up all the toys & go home.

The CBC will flush closer to $35 Billion down the "nobody watches us anyway toilet" over the  same time frame.

Let's focus on really expensive public spending boondoggles like the CBC, or the $3 - $5 billion spent EVERY year on Immigration lawyers and bogus refugee claimants or the gawd knows how many $billions wasted every year funding thousands of grievance mongering victimization or tree hugging groups that set themselves up as NGO's and get a lip lock on the public teat via government grants.

Freeing up money for DND is a Target Rich Environment.  We just need a government willing to shoot at sacred cows.




Offline Lex Parsimoniae

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
Re: Looking at German, Spanish Designs as Options
« Reply #699 on: October 10, 2010, 10:28:00 »
This today in MERX (highlights mine):
More on link and in attached if link doesn't work.

More on:
- Berlin class replenishment ships here (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
- ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. here and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems here
- Pantino/Cantavia class replenishment ships here
- Navantia S.A. here
Good news.