AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[RC]

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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. 

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!

 

[MarkOttawa]

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

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

 

[MarkOttawa]

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

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/threads/99923.0.html

Chez nous:

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

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

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/

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:

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

 

[Dissident]

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.

 

[jollyjacktar]

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.

 

[FSTO]

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.

 

[ironduke57]

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

Remember the latest call for professional services (8 Nar 11 here)?

New bid deadline:  9 May 2011 - see attached.

 

[Rifleman62]

Way out of my lane. Interesting video.

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2011/04/ship-for-canada-with-few-modifications.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FbhARU+%28Celestial+Junk%29

Previously noted here by MarkOttawa

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99923.0.html

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The problem is that its not a dedicated AOR. Sure you can carry troops and vehicles but the main overall mission of the new AORs/JSS is to replenish the ships of the fleet and to have a minor troop lift capability. Using an LPD/LHD/LHA for RAS can be done but should be only used in extreme situations. To use anything else but an AOR is a half assed measure at best.

 

[Snakedoc]

Definitely a very cool vessel with a lot of bells and whistles.  Would love to see one in the fleet but as was mentioned, not an AOR.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Definitely a very cool vessel with a lot of bells and whistles.  Would love to see one in the fleet but as was mentioned, not an AOR.

Agreed....would love to see one in the Fleet but not at the expense of other naval and more important capabilities.

 

[Good2Golf]

Folks, let's use our heads and refrain from discussing things from a Departmental internal system.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well we can buy the Dutch AOR, it should fit in nicely considering it was built in 1975.

 

[gvg]

Well we can buy the Dutch AOR, it should fit in nicely considering it was built in 1975.

Yep, if you want the AOR built in 1995 (HNLMS Amsterdam), you'll have to wait untill 2014. Would fit nicely with Patino AORs if Canada would decide to build those. The Patino class was a joint design by Spanish BAZAN and Dutch NEVESBU. HNLMS Amsterdam is the Dutch built version of that design.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is germane to this discussion:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/department-of-national-defence-to-drop-ship-lease-after-losing-millions/article2111804/

Department of National Defence to drop ship lease after losing millions

MURRAY BREWSTER
Naples, Italy— The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, Jul. 27, 2011

The Department of National Defence plans to drop the use of a dedicated civilian cargo ship for hauling military supplies and equipment after discovering that Ottawa lost millions of dollars in the arrangement.

The existing contract for the use of the container ship will be allowed to lapse in October, according to internal federal documents.

The ship has been used 13 times since October 2007, most notably to move Canadian military equipment and humanitarian supplies to Haiti in January 2010 following the earthquake.

The documents say that most of the time, the ship has either been waiting for orders or sailing empty, at a cost of $21.3 million to taxpayers

“Of that, only $3.4 million is directly attributed to the movement of cargo with the remainder for empty transits, standby while awaiting tasking as well as support to two Naval exercises,” said a briefing note prepared for Defence Minister Peter MacKay and obtained by The Canadian Press.

Defence bureaucrats estimate that had they leased a ship on a spot basis — as they had done so in the past — it would have likely cost a total of $13 million.

“We will save money by eliminating the (full-time charter),” said the briefing note dated Oct. 22, 2010. “It will be cancelled.”

The decision comes as the Defence Department concedes that future operations could mean “in the post-July 2012 period, (that) CF readiness levels may require a faster response” in the deployment of troops and equipment overseas.

The use of the cargo ship has been cumbersome because its owners are allowed to shop it out to other NATO countries and commercial clients when Canada is not using it. And it has taken up to 30 days in some cases for them to recall the ship for duty at a Canadian port.

A case in point was the Haiti relief effort where C-17 transport planes were able to be on the ground within hours of the disaster, but it took up to three weeks to ship vehicles and equipment to peacekeepers deployed in the ruined country.

Sources at NATO expressed concerns about the decision to drop the ship contract because Canada originally bought in at the request of the alliance.

While cost concerns were understood, the thought of a major partner without dedicated sealift makes some people nervous, especially when the Harper government's plan to build joint support ships for the navy is years behind schedule.

Defence bureaucrats in Ottawa point out that they have never had a problem renting a ship on the spot. That may be true, but those arrangements haven't always gone smoothly.

Army equipment and vehicles returning from the war in Kosovo were snared in a contract dispute involving the ship's owner, forcing the Canadian navy to board the Estai on the high seas almost a decade ago. A dedicated ship was considered one way to avoid a repeat of such a scenario.

It was reinforced after the 2005 Prague NATO summit when the alliance said it faced a shortage of transport ships. It proposed sharing time on dedicated ships and flogged it as a “cost-effective” solution.

There were dire warnings at the time about a global shortage of container ships because of China's booming economy, but the shortage did not occur.

“Co-operative saving with our allies has not materialized despite our best efforts to participate in the various NATO organizations established for that purpose,” said the note to Mr. MacKay.

Defence expert Rob Huebert says the problem speaks to the larger question of what sort of vision the Harper government has for the navy.

“It at the very least raises the issue of what is the best way of ensuring we can move our forces,” said Mr. Huebert, a University of Calgary professor.

He pointed out that most of the navy's equipment needs to be replaced over the next 15 years and major projects, like the supply ships, are years behind schedule.

In addition, the Harper government has committed to building Arctic patrol ships as well as modernizing and eventually replacing its frigate fleet.

Mr. Huebert said sealift is an essential capability, much like the C-17 has demonstrated the effectiveness of massive airlift.

Retired Gen. Rick Hillier, the former defence chief, once proposed that the military acquire a transport landing ship which would not only haul supplies but troops and helicopters as well. The proposal was shelved.

It could have proven useful in Haiti, where the leased cargo ship was not able to unload because the ports were damaged by the earthquake. Instead, it dropped vehicles and supplies off in the Dominican Republic and the material was flown over the mountain into Haiti.

Well, another option bites the dust.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just a quibbling point for accuracy -  Canada did not ship her Kosovo gear back on the Spanish Trawler Estai.

Her problem was with the Ukrainian-American Ship GTS Katie

 

[Good2Golf]

Just a quibbling point for accuracy -  Canada did not ship her Kosovo gear back on the Spanish Trawler Estai.

Her problem was with the Ukrainian-American Ship GTS Katie

Don't worry, Kirkhill...it's not really a "quibble" when journalist (used to) pride themselves on 'accuracy' as one of the tenets for their trade...  :nod:

Regards
G2G