Joint Support Ship tender released.

[PhillTaj]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1958

"Canada First" Defence Procurement - Joint Support Ship

BG-06.015 - June 26, 2006

Identifying the needs of the Canadian Forces

For the past 35 years, the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) vessels have done more than just re-fuel and re-supply the fleet. HMCS Protecteur, and HMCS Preserver have contributed to humanitarian aid missions in Florida and the Bahamas, peace-making off Somalia and East Timor, and have been poised for the evacuation of non-combatants from Haiti, to name but a few. Now, these vessels are approaching the end of their service lives and the cost of fully maintaining and servicing this capability is increasing.

The new Joint Support Ship’s (JSS) ultimate goal is the delivery of three multi-role vessels with substantially more capability than the AORs. In addition to being able to provide at-sea support to deployed naval task groups, they will also be capable of sealift operations as well as support to forces deployed ashore.

Canada First at home and abroad – how we’ll meet needs moving forward

The Joint Support Ship will provide Canada with modern vessels that are a critical component of Canada’s defence capability, both at home and abroad. These vessels will enable the Canadian Forces to fulfill its domestic maritime security priorities as well as support Canada’s foreign policy objectives.

The Joint Support Ships will maintain the core capabilities inherent in the Navy’s current replenishment ships including:

*

The provision at sea of fuel, food, spare parts, and ammunition;
*

Modern medical and dental care facilities, including an operating room for urgently needed operations;
*

Repair facilities and technical expertise to keep aircraft and other equipment functioning; and
*

Basic self-defence.

They will also support Canadian Forces operations ashore through additional features, including:

*

Roll-on Roll-off (RO-RO) of cargo;
*

Lift-on Lift-off (LO-LO) of cargo;
*

The operation of three to four maritime helicopters (each ship);
*

Work and living space for additional personnel, over and above the standard crew of up to 165 people; and,
*

Capability to navigate in first-year arctic ice.

Replenishment ships such as the Joint Support Ship enable a Naval Task Group to remain at sea for up to six times longer than would be possible without these ships. This capability is critical to safeguard our domestic maritime security and sovereignty. With their added capacity to support troops ashore, they will also serve to reinforce Canada’s global presence while supporting our nation’s foreign policy objectives. Here are some highlights of what the Joint Support Ship will offer:

*

A covered multi-purpose deck space for vehicles and containers with space for additional containers on the upper decks. This will serve to reduce the reliance on chartered sealift.
*

The notional dimensions of the ship will be in the order of 200 metres in length, 26 metres in breadth and a displacement of 28,000 metric tonnes.
*

In addition to the interoperatibility with the Army and Air Force, being able to function as a Joint Task Force Headquarters is also important, as it may be impossible to establish a JTF HQ ashore in areas of conflict.
*

Inherent in the ship design will also be an ability to be rapidly reconfigured. The hangar, normally used for doing maintenance on aircraft, could be rapidly transformed to care for survivors of a disaster at sea or at shore.
*

The ship will also be configured with both active and passive self-defence systems and an ability to navigate in first-year arctic ice up to 0.7 metres thick.

A fair, open and transparent process

The four consortia bidding on the project definition phase are led by:

*

Irving Shipbuilding
*

BAE Systems (Project) Limited (BAE Systems Naval Ships)
*

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG
*

SNC-Lavalin Profac Inc.

The bidding consortia invited to submit implementation proposals for preliminary ship design, project implementation plans, and an in-service support plan.

Two consortia will be awarded contracts ($12.5 million each) for the project definition phase, and will compete for the final Implementation contract. Based on the definition phase plans, one consortium will be chosen for project implementation. The overall project cost is $2.9 billion. This includes a base cost of $2.1 billion, plus an estimated $800 million in contracted in-service support over 20 years.

A good deal for Canadian industry

In accordance with Canadian shipbuilding policy the Joint Support Ships will be built in Canada. This infusion of opportunity into Canada’s shipbuilding industry means the creation of high quality jobs and fostering of industrial development, which will in turn contribute to stronger Canadian economy.

Canada's new government will ensure that the Joint Support Ship project delivers maximum high-quality industrial benefits to Canadians and that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is well positioned to play a significant role this project proceeds.

This project will create long-term industrial development for Canadians. The Government's policy requires that prime contractors on defence procurements undertake business activities in Canada, usually in an amount equal to the value of the contract they have won. This helps Canadian companies maintain globally competitive operations in the country and effectively support future national security requirements.

____________

Thoughts?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Truly Awesome

Those sound fantastic right on the money in terms of a credible capability boost. I just hope they are delivered as described now, those sound like fantastic replacements for HMAS Success and HMNZS Endeavour. Canada seem to be going along way as re-establishing itself as military power.

 

[contedicavour]

Very useful ships indeed. No news on Iroquois DDG replacements though ?

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

It's great Canada is finally moving on its sealift and airlift problems. Both should have been addressed 5-10 years ago. Sometimes it takes a change in government to move on military procurement needs.

However, I wonder whether Canada would be better off acquiring three South Korean replenishment oilers(AOR) instead of replenishment ships (AOE), and two Dutch Enforcer LPDs? South Korean AORs could be purchased for $400 million, two Dutch LPDs for $400, both in Canadian dollars. The LPDs would provide a tactical sealift capability, over the beach, the new multi-role AOEs don't. Both designs could be built in Canada.

Its my opinion AOEs are a bit of an overkill when a navy doesn't have an LHD or carrier, that AORs are adequate for a frigate/destroyer navy.

 

[PhillTaj]

It's great Canada is finally moving on its sealift and airlift problems. Both should have been addressed 5-10 years ago. Sometimes it takes a change in government to move on military procurement needs.

However, I wonder whether Canada would be better off acquiring three South Korean replenishment oilers(AOR) instead of replenishment ships (AOE), and two Dutch Enforcer LPDs? South Korean AORs could be purchased for $400 million, two Dutch LPDs for $400, both in Canadian dollars. The LPDs would provide a tactical sealift capability, over the beach, the new multi-role AOEs don't. Both designs could be built in Canada.

Its my opinion AOEs are a bit of an overkill when a navy doesn't have an LHD or carrier, that AORs are adequate for a frigate/destroyer navy.

The JSS are primarily oilers....if we have to, we can use them to lift troops and vehicles, but usually not in a combat zone. We are currently drawing up plans for an amphibious assault ship, with the Dutch Enforcer and American San Antonio frontrunners. However, the current gov't favored the Mistral or Cavour while in opposition- so we'll see where the BHS (Big Honkin Ship) goes.

 

[swerve]

The JSS are primarily oilers....if we have to, we can use them to lift troops and vehicles, but usually not in a combat zone. We are currently drawing up plans for an amphibious assault ship, with the Dutch Enforcer and American San Antonio frontrunners. However, the current gov't favored the Mistral or Cavour while in opposition- so we'll see where the BHS (Big Honkin Ship) goes.

Cavour is really a light carrier with a secondary amphibious capability (no dock - ramps), so not ideal unless you plan on buying some F-35B. Her lifts are sized for F-35B: she's very much designed around JSF, & more expensive than any of the other European contenders. The Spanish BPE is an LHD with secondary aviation capability, & Mistral a straight LHD - and a bit smaller. So which is best depends on what you want it for. The Enforcers come in pick 'n mix, so you can have whatever you want - LSD like the Bay-class, LPD like Rotterdam, LHD, & from <10K up to 30K tonnes. San Antonio suffers from US shipbuilding costs, & is more expensive than the French, Spanish or Dutch options.

 

[PhillTaj]

Cavour is really a light carrier with a secondary amphibious capability (no dock - ramps), so not ideal unless you plan on buying some F-35B. Her lifts are sized for F-35B: she's very much designed around JSF, & more expensive than any of the other European contenders. The Spanish BPE is an LHD with secondary aviation capability, & Mistral a straight LHD - and a bit smaller. So which is best depends on what you want it for. The Enforcers come in pick 'n mix, so you can have whatever you want - LSD like the Bay-class, LPD like Rotterdam, LHD, & from <10K up to 30K tonnes. San Antonio suffers from US shipbuilding costs, & is more expensive than the French, Spanish or Dutch options.

oh i know that the cavour is a light carrier... the Tories, in the 2004 election, said they would buy light carriers or "hybrid aircraft carriers" in simple folk election trail lingo.

 

[Jtimes2]

There was an interesting article in the Wall St Journal a few weeks ago about this. Apparently the new Canadian gov't is liberalizing (bad choice of word, I know) their defense procurement rules. Canada has a convoluted set of guidelines on a % of the product that had to be Canadian, a long stream of Review Boards that could demand design changes, etc.

They had a photo of their Defense minister with three helmets. He said an off-the-shelf US Army helmet would have cost $x, an off-the-shelf Chinese army helmet would have cost $x, but the Canadian army helmets cost $xxxxx because of all the procurement rules and in the end were less effective than either of the other two.

So maybe we will see more flexibility in the biding for non-technology controlled items, like oilers. It would be quite a silent commentary on the 21st Century if say, a South Korean or Indian yard sells warships to a North American navy.

Whatever happens, it can't be much worse than their cheapo garage-sale strategy for buying submarines.

 

[swerve]

oh i know that the cavour is a light carrier... the Tories, in the 2004 election, said they would buy light carriers or "hybrid aircraft carriers" in simple folk election trail lingo.

Well, "hybrid aircraft carrier" sounds a fair description of Cavour. She's mostly a light carrier, but has been designed with a limited amphibious capability, with ramps for loading & unloading of vehicles, & accomodation for 325 marines. But she's not a substitute for an LPD or LHD with a dock. She's designed to operate in a force including LPDs, of which Italy has 3 (but small), so buying a Cavour-style ship as a substitute for a dedicated amphibious ship doesn't seem sensible. Without jets, her carrier capabilities would be wasted - and they don't come cheap.

For a "hybrid aircraft carrier" the same size, which is mainly an amphibious ship but with a secondary aviation capability, the Spanish BPE design would seem more appropriate. And much cheaper. She can't operate as many fighters, but in Canadian service could, e.g., embark a few USMC F-35B, & has a dock & her own landing craft.

 

[Supe]

I reckon the Canadian media would see the suggestion of a 'flat top' type amphibious ship as too 'warlike' and see it as a hint to much more aggressive attitude in Canadian foreign policy. As I understand it, the SPS/Mistral class are seen in RAN terms as vessel that is much more efficient in managing multiple lift offs/landings by helo. I suppose the choice is a reflection of the lessons learn't from operating the Kanimbla (ex-Newport) class ships. That such a ship like an SPS could in an emergency be used for F35 (depending on type) is gravy.

 

[swerve]

As I understand it, the SPS/Mistral class are seen in RAN terms as vessel that is much more efficient in managing multiple lift offs/landings by helo. I suppose the choice is a reflection of the lessons learn't from operating the Kanimbla (ex-Newport) class ships. That such a ship like an SPS could in an emergency be used for F35 (depending on type) is gravy.

Well, that's exactly what Mistral is designed for, & why she & her sister ship are flat tops, unlike the older French amphibs. They're not intended for operating fighters, & would require quite a bit of reworking to permit it, so shortlisting the French proposal clearly shows that's not what the RAN is interested in, though buying the BPE/SPS would allow it. Indeed, in Spanish service the BPE will be the sole Harrier platform for a while, as Principe de Asturias will be going in for a major refit as soon as the BPE is in service.

 

[contedicavour]

Well, "hybrid aircraft carrier" sounds a fair description of Cavour. She's mostly a light carrier, but has been designed with a limited amphibious capability, with ramps for loading & unloading of vehicles, & accomodation for 325 marines. But she's not a substitute for an LPD or LHD with a dock. She's designed to operate in a force including LPDs, of which Italy has 3 (but small), so buying a Cavour-style ship as a substitute for a dedicated amphibious ship doesn't seem sensible. Without jets, her carrier capabilities would be wasted - and they don't come cheap.

For a "hybrid aircraft carrier" the same size, which is mainly an amphibious ship but with a secondary aviation capability, the Spanish BPE design would seem more appropriate. And much cheaper. She can't operate as many fighters, but in Canadian service could, e.g., embark a few USMC F-35B, & has a dock & her own landing craft.

Fully agree. Before building the Cavour the Italian Navy agonized for 10 years on whether to build a big LHD with priority to amphibious warfare or build instead a pure aircraft carrier CVL with some sealift capability. In 2001 the choice was clearly made to go for a CVL for 2 dozen Harrier/F35/EH-101. In parallel the Italian Navy has a programme to build a 4th LPD of the size of the Royal Navy's Ocean, though this unit has a lower priority than financing all 10 of the FREMM, and the 3rd and 4th U-212 SSK. So don't expect to see it built before 2010-2015.

cheers

PS : the portaerei "conte di Cavour" will start sea trials in September.

 

[Wild Weasel]

Sounds almost American in size, scope, and capability. Hopefully it will also be affordable enoeugh to be built and operated in sufficent numbers. This is the best way forward, on her first steps into a dangerous new world.

Bravo Zulu Canada. :canada

 

[leesea]

Canadian JSS vs. the real world

IMHO, the JSS will be stuck in the same category as the USN SanAntonio class. Too much cost, too much time to build, too many expensive systems, and generally over the top as the last purpose built amphibious warfare ships. If US is having problems buying their new LPDs, how much harder will the JSS be to Canada?

The CASR had a good start with their "Modest Proposal" goto:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-jss-bhs-navy.htm

I think two Enforcer LPDs along with a four used Cimarron AOs or Wichita AORs would be the magic combination. All available now at more reasonable costs!

A much more realistic program.

 

[Sea Toby]

Its my opinion Canada would be better off with 2 Dutch AORs of the Amsterdam class and 2 Dutch LPDs of the Rotterdam class, one each for each coast with probably half the cost of the 3 new multi-role JSS ships. Canada would also acquire tactical sealift capabilities, the abillity to disembark forces and equipment over a beach. Use the money saved to acquire a LHD, similar to the French Mistral class NOW, instead of later.

 

[PhillTaj]

Its my opinion Canada would be better off with 2 Dutch AORs of the Amsterdam class and 2 Dutch LPDs of the Rotterdam class, one each for each coast with probably half the cost of the 3 new multi-role JSS ships. Canada would also acquire tactical sealift capabilities, the abillity to disembark forces and equipment over a beach. Use the money saved to acquire a LHD, similar to the French Mistral class NOW, instead of later.

Well for starters, JSS will be used 90 percent of the time as a replenishment ship, with hardly any transport capacity. We aint that stupid (at least I hope not)

We have an outstanding requirement for amphibious assualt ships, the project will probably be officially started in the fall or next year so our yards will have some work after JSS in the middle of the next decade.

We are looking mainly at Enforcers or San Antonios (dont ask me why). However, the current gov't supported LHDs while in opposition, so we'll see.

We have troops conducting amphibious exercises in the US starting this summer and fall- proof the project is coming online sooon.

 

[contedicavour]

Well for starters, JSS will be used 90 percent of the time as a replenishment ship, with hardly any transport capacity. We aint that stupid (at least I hope not)

We have an outstanding requirement for amphibious assualt ships, the project will probably be officially started in the fall or next year so our yards will have some work after JSS in the middle of the next decade.

We are looking mainly at Enforcers or San Antonios (dont ask me why). However, the current gov't supported LHDs while in opposition, so we'll see.

We have troops conducting amphibious exercises in the US starting this summer and fall- proof the project is coming online sooon.

Why did Canada priorize AOR capability over the LHD capability ? Ok, your JSS will have some troop transport capability, but still...
According to me, the Canadian Navy's priorities should be :
(1) patrol of national waters, ASUW and ASW => Halifax are fine
(2) helping the air force protect national airspace => replace the Tribal-TRUMP DDGs
(3) deploy army troops in overseas missions => hence the need for LHDs
(4) support overseas missions with fuel, ammunition, etc => AOR/JSS
By the way, I don't see what use the ex-RN Upholders may have in this strategy, other than preserving the Canadian Navy's existing SSK capability.

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

There is a new government in place, and while its conducting a defense review, everyone agrees their logistic needs today are paramount. Its easy to pass new replacements for airlift and sealift, in every form, especially when everyone sees the needs as paramount, than it is to pass new acquisitions for offensive fighters, tanks, and new destroyers/frigates.

Their Hercules fleet is older than their Hornet fleet, their replenishment ships are much older than their frigate fleet. Its a no brainer, to shore up the airlift and sealift assets first. Until the defense review is finished, they have haven't a clue in which fighters, tanks, or warships to buy, much less how many.

 

[contedicavour]

There is a new government in place, and while its conducting a defense review, everyone agrees their logistic needs today are paramount. Its easy to pass new replacements for airlift and sealift, in every form, especially when everyone sees the needs as paramount, than it is to pass new acquisitions for offensive fighters, tanks, and new destroyers/frigates.

Their Hercules fleet is older than their Hornet fleet, their replenishment ships are much older than their frigate fleet. Its a no brainer, to shore up the airlift and sealift assets first. Until the defense review is finished, they have haven't a clue in which fighters, tanks, or warships to buy, much less how many.

Ehm... the oldest ships in the Canadian Navy are the DDGs, the Tribals, born as destroyer escorts and updated with VLS & SM-2. They are now 35 years old and counting with no replacements in sight !

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, but at least they were given a mid-life refit and modernization in which they were converted from an ASW asset into a AWD asset. Whether any new AWD destroyers will be built, which ones, where, and when will more than likely be addressed by the new defense review. Keep in mind Canada does have twelve city class frigates which were delivered in the 1990s. The new defense review may decide to cut and not replace the AWD destroyers, and instead upgrade their newer frigates. It seems many of the other NATO partners have cut the size of their naval fleets.

Frankly, I think Canada would be better off investing in either ice breakers and/or ice strengthen ocean patrol vessels to watch over their large Artic EEZ.