AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Agree. Very slick presentation.

Colin, I know of Seaspan's web site progress pictures, but I don't recall seeing any videos. Are there any?

Also, for those who have viewed the Davie video, just a rhetorical question: How much delays and extra money do you think our East Coast Friend would have tried to "extort" from our government had they suffered a  minor catastrophe like Davie having its dry dock flooded from the extraordinary river flood and high tides of this spring? Note that davie is still 90 % complete and indicates they are still ahead of schedule even with this drawback.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Seaspan is not as slick as Davie, but they maintain easy to find and use photo albums so I give them a good grade on that. Here is a video timelapse https://www.seaspan.com/20170313-ofsv1-progresstimelapse

As for your other question, I shudder to think. But I suspect it would really show the difference in management culture, I think that company suffers to much of the "to big to fail" attitude.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Love these updates.  They sure make Irving look like shit.  Mind you, that's pretty low hanging fruit.

 

[FSTO]

From the persona-non-grata reporter (I won't paste the link) of the Ottawa Citizen that basically confirms that the federal bureaucrats care not a whit about capability and its all about process. They admit the project resolve is a good idea and is good value for money but they didn't like the optics of making the NSP look bad.
Very disheartening to say the least.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think it might have more been concerns about 'oh, you have project resolve, we can cancel JSS altogether'.  Just having a single AOR would have been bad.

The Davie facility looks pretty impressive.  I'd love to get a tour through there to compare against the ISI and Seaspan facilities (both of which are pretty impressive for assembling the blocks).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Invites to the public as well for next month, wish I could be there

http://www.janes.com/article/71441/davie-prepares-resolve-class-oiler-for-delivery-eyes-new-conversions-on-the-horizon?from_rss=1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I can't post more due to the source not being allowed to be linked here.

 

[serger989]

Invites to the public as well for next month, wish I could be there

http://www.janes.com/article/71441/davie-prepares-resolve-class-oiler-for-delivery-eyes-new-conversions-on-the-horizon?from_rss=1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I can't post more due to the source not being allowed to be linked here.

I hope Davie is able to push ahead with Project Resolute. A secondary PIB (AIVIQ, 2nd to Diefenbaker) and 3 medium IBs (Vikings) would really help the CCG out big time.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

CCG might be reluctant to "lease" a vessel, someone might start asking: "So if we are leasing an icebreaker, why aren't just contracting the work out?"

 

[ModlrMike]

I think conversions might be a great way for smaller shipyards to stay in the game. I know that when Davie got the contract there was much celebrating in Quebec City, and there's probably still an appetite for similar projects.

 

[JLB50]

I understand that Resolve is being converted to commercial rather than military standards.  But would it have been vastly more expensive to have converted it to military specifications?  Or do military standards start with the composition of the hull itself as well as internal fittings and systems? Is a different thickness or grade of steel required for the hulls of military ships?

 

[Kirkhill]

I understand that Resolve is being converted to commercial rather than military standards.  But would it have been vastly more expensive to have converted it to military specifications?  Or do military standards start with the composition of the hull itself as well as internal fittings and systems? Is a different thickness or grade of steel required for the hulls of military ships?

Standards are "various". There are naval and military standards administered by national militaries.  There are communal military standards such as NATO standards.  There are national standards for civilian vessels administered by state agencies.  There a privately administered standards for civilian vessels administered by outfits like Lloyds and DNV.  And those same companies administer separate but similar standards for military vessels.

Bit of a dog's breakfast and ultimately up to the operator to choose the insurer and the national flag under which it will sail.  In my opinion.

The Europeans are leaning towards militarized civilian standards for everything but high end combat vessels.  Even their patrol vessels, even if well armed, are being built to militarized civilian standards.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Lloyds rules are going to be very important in future vessels.

 

[JLB50]

Jollyjacktar, you're probably right.  Interestingly, if my memory serves me correctly, a year or two ago the Chinese government was planning to require all new commercial ships over a certain size to be built to military standards as well as have some of them subject to use by the military.  Not sure though if it actually happened.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Standards are "various". There are naval and military standards administered by national militaries.  There are communal military standards such as NATO standards.  There are national standards for civilian vessels administered by state agencies.  There a privately administered standards for civilian vessels administered by outfits like Lloyds and DNV.  And those same companies administer separate but similar standards for military vessels.

Bit of a dog's breakfast and ultimately up to the operator to choose the insurer and the national flag under which it will sail.  In my opinion.

The Europeans are leaning towards militarized civilian standards for everything but high end combat vessels.  Even their patrol vessels, even if well armed, are being built to militarized civilian standards.

Don't forget the first line on pretty much all the IMO, SOLAS and other regulatory standard ; "Military vessels are exempt".  We self regulate, and any civilian standards (or otherwise) are voluntary.  That's why we formed our own baseline standard for required equipment for the frigates to meet the general intent of SOLAS and the Nato ANEP 77 standards.

One weird intersection is where different authorities require any vessel coming in to meet (like a harbour authority requiring double hull tankers) or transitting through (ie St. Lawrence Seaway authority), but those are performance based vice certification.

At the end of the day, nothing will legally prevent us from sailing if we don't meet Lloyds or whatever due to operational requirements but I suspect you'll need a good reason on the ISSC ships as that will affect the expensive warranties we pay for.

 

[AlexanderM]

Look at the difference in the cost of the first Frigates Spain built to civilian standards as compared to the last one in which the US convinced them to use steel with anti-ballistic properties.

Sorry to quote Wiki, but I used to be able to find lots of articles about this, but now, not so much. Anyway you will notice that the cost of the first 4 ships is listed as $600M USD each and the last ship was $1.1B USD, the last ship being built to much higher standards. I believe they all look pretty much identical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n-class_frigate

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't forget the first line on pretty much all the IMO, SOLAS and other regulatory standard ; "Military vessels are exempt".  We self regulate, and any civilian standards (or otherwise) are voluntary.  That's why we formed our own baseline standard for required equipment for the frigates to meet the general intent of SOLAS and the Nato ANEP 77 standards.

One weird intersection is where different authorities require any vessel coming in to meet (like a harbour authority requiring double hull tankers) or transitting through (ie St. Lawrence Seaway authority), but those are performance based vice certification.

At the end of the day, nothing will legally prevent us from sailing if we don't meet Lloyds or whatever due to operational requirements but I suspect you'll need a good reason on the ISSC ships as that will affect the expensive warranties we pay for.

One of the advantages of being a sovereign state, eh?

You don't have to worry about whose flag you sail under.  Its your flag and you make up the rules.  And as for insurance - in the words of the trade - you're self-insured.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Lloyd's and DNV, amongst others, are construction standards and fitted system standards that relate to the actual construction of the vessels (and the maintenance of seaworthiness thereafter). And then the military has their own standards for construction, that usually relate to flood and fire control, NBCD protection, shock resistance, EMP protection, etc. which are of much less interest to the civilian vessels.

IMO and SOLAS are regulation concerning life saving equipment and personnel safety practices (like the new container weighing requirements). They have nothing to do with construction and fitting out of vessels, other than specifying the number and type of lifeboats, minimum radios kitting, minimum radar requirements, carrying of EPIRB's, issuing Rules of the Road etc. and other similar obligations.

 

[Kirkhill]

Surely they all impact on the design and construction and associated costs of any vessel?

Lloyd's and DNV are construction standards.  They can be invoked by the insurer's as a method of protecting their investment and forced on any operator that cannot afford self-insurance.  On the other hand, a self-insured agency might voluntarily decide to adopt any of those standards, especially if they have minimal expertise themselves, as a means of keeping their risks under control. 

But, because the standards are adopted voluntarily, they can be modified at whim.  It might not make sense to modify the standard, and doing so might be a big mistake, but there is nothing to prevent the modification of a standard to meet the wishes of the owner.

As for international laws -  and laws of the sea - ultimately those are gentlemen's accommodations.  There is little to stop a vessel with lots of guns cruising the high seas spewing smoke, leaking oil and releasing more radiation than Chernobyl.  The recourse is another vessel with bigger guns (or more vessels with guns).

 

[a_majoor]

Chris, this sounds right up your alley:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/07/13/USNS-Lewis-B-Puller-expeditionary-sea-base-deploys-for-first-time/9291499967079/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=1

USNS Lewis B. Puller expeditionary sea base deploys for first time
The USNS Lewis B. Puller has deployed from Val Air Station Norfolk, marking the first operational cruise of the expeditionary sea base as it joins its supporting role in the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
By Stephen Carlson  |  July 13, 2017 at 2:16 PM

July 13 (UPI) -- The USNS Lewis B. Puller has deployed from Val Air Station Norfolk, marking the first operational cruise of the expeditionary sea base as it joins its supporting role in the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

The Puller is part of the U.S. Navy's Sealift Command and has a joint U.S. Navy and civilian crew.

"The Puller is a brand new ship, so we had a lot to learn. The military crew has been training with the ship's civil service mariners for a year to prepare for this deployment," military detachments officer-in-charge Cmdr. Arlen Rose said in a press release.

"We are ready to get Puller out there to takes its rightful place in the fleet. Everyone is really excited to get to work and see what the Puller can do."

The Puller is the first purpose-built expeditionary sea base of its kind. It is 784 feet long and has a 52,000 square-foot flight deck. It serves as a logistical hub for other ships with fuel and ammunition storage and repair facilities.

Its helicopter facilities and storage capacity make it ideal for humanitarian and disaster relief support alongside conventional military operations.

The Puller will be permanently stationed overseas to allow continuous suport for other deployed ships. Crew rotations would take place in theater.

The ship draws its name from Lt. Gen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller, a commander in World War II and Korea, and the only Marine to win 5 Navy crosses.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Be interesting if Davie was to propose a helicopter carrier based on a existing RO/RO hull