John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Good thing modern sailors aren’t superstitious or they might think the ship is jinxed.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Nice picture of CCG hovercraft CCGS Mamilossa (photo courtesy Canadian Coast Guard Twitter feed: Canadian Coast Guard (@CoastGuardCAN) | Twitter)
Ok, I just though you might have been there that's all because I remember you saying that you were going to some show. There is a program out that if you know the focal length of the camera lens and the dimensions of one object in the photo, you can calculate the dimensions of the other objects. It's called photo rectification and I've used in measuring sand bars in an estuary. It was part of a very good & expensive GIS program I had access to at the time.
Gotcha. That's good to know. Thanks.
Seaspan lays Keel for Royal Canadian Navy’s First Joint Support Ship, HMCS Protecteur
http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/DEFSEC-FOR-WEB.pdfNavy Recognition said:
Are Navy Recognition's JSS specs accurate to the finalized design? On slide 14 of Davie Shipyard's 2017 PDF advertising the Asterix they present JSS specs presumably based on a combination of the original JSS requirements and the Berlin-class base design.
Comparing the old specs versus the latest report: 10,000 tonnes ship fuel is at the top end of the original proposal, aviation fuel has increased from 700 tonnes to 1,300 tonnes, from no vehicle bay to 1,000–1,500 lane meters deck space with roll-on/roll-off capability, from 1 helicopter landing spot to 2, and from hangar space for 2 helicopters to 4 helicopters. Combined with ice-strengthening the hull, electrical changes from 230V to 120V, probably HVAC changes for arctic operations, seemingly more extensive sensor and command and control capabilities, there seems to be extensive changes from the base Berlin-class.
Assuming Navy Recognition is accurate, on one hand it's good to know that the large budget and long time-scale of the JSS at least yields some more capabilities compared to the Berlin-class. On the other hand, all these changes seems to defeat the purpose of going with an off-the-shelf design.
So what are the specs then? CAN$2.1 billion per ship is still a helluva lot of coin for one ship. Are the heads gold plated or something? Just to put things into perspective, the RNZN are having this ship delivered shortly HMNZS Aotearoa for the cost of NZ$493 million (CAN$424 million) and whilst it doesn't have vehicular RO/RO, it's winterised and ice strengthened to PC6 for use in Antarctica, so that it can follow an icebreaker in McMurdo Sound, for annual fuel and stores deliveries. CAN$800 million per ship yes, I can understand that, but the cost of nigh on 2 T26 frigates?????
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
I think you are confusing the Asterix with the Protecteur. The Asterix is a converted civilian ship prepared by Davie ship building and the Protecteur is a modified Berlin class JSS being build by Seaspan. The Asterix is a stop gap and is not expected to be capable of entering hostile waters, but was desperately needed at the time. Navy Reognition's specs are accurate for the Protecteur as far as I know.
Joint support ships - Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC
The government is still reporting $3.4 billion for the whole JSS project although that's under review so is presumably going up. Is it up to CAN$2.1 billion per ship now?
Maybe it's my own misconception, but I thought the JSS would end up being a minimally Canadianized Berlin-class for that high $3.4 billion+ budget so I just felt any added capability is an improvement. I'm not claiming these improved specs make the JSS good value compared to what could be built in other countries.
Slide 14 of the 2017 Davie PDF compares the specs of the proposed JSS/Berlin-class with the Asterix and I'm using these older proposed JSS/Berlin-class specs to compare to Navy Recognition's current JSS specs showing there have been improvements.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the cost of housing in Vancouver and the lower Fraser Valley, I am not surprised the JSS ship price is escalating. Don’t know what SeaSpan employees are being paid but it must be a $hitload more than what Irving or Davie are paying.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
I think I get where you are coming from now. I think there are a few questions; first is will the JSS proposed be better suited for the task than the Asterix, second is if they are worth the 3.4B (1.7B each), and finally what are the true final specs.
For the first question, I believe the answer is yes. The Asterix is a converted cargo ship. I don't believe it will be hardened like a purpose build JSS would be. The JSS must be able to operate in contested waters. In such waters, it would become a high priority target. How much this costs can be debated, but it certainly is not free. Just equipping it with CMS330 probably added a big chunk to the cost. I believe some sort of purpose build JSS was needed and as much as I like Asterix (and Obelix for that matter, I still have all of the original comics), these need to be seen for what they are, a stop gap. I suspect this is why the DOD does not even want to discuss getting the Obelix as it would likely take funding away from what they really want, which is a warship, not a civilian ship.
For the second question, well it is Canada, so we will certainly be paying more than we should. For that premium we keep jobs (such that a huge % of that money ends up back in the govt coffers), capability and intellectual property within the country - If that is worth the cost I leave it to each individual to decide for themselves - some put more stock into jobs etc than others. Politically it is a no-brainer, jobs buy votes. And @John Fedup, yes, we pay real living wages in BC.
As for the specs, right now I believe nothing I have read. Sources I have seen are all over the place, the following sources I give: the Davie presentation and the Navy Recognition article (from @Albedo's post #2148) and Seaspan's Website .
To compare, key items:
Helicopters CH-148 - Davie says 1 spot, 2 hangers, Navy says 4 spots and 4 hangers, Seaspan says 1 spots, 2 hangers - Probably 1 landing spot and 2 hangers
Marine Fuel - Davie says 7,000-10,000 tonnes, Navy says 10,000 tonnes, Seaspan says 6,000 tonnes
Aviation Fuel - Davie says 700 tonnes, Navy says 1,300 tonnes, Seaspan says 875 tonnes
Ammunition - Davie does not say, Navy says 1,100 tonnes, Seaspan says 1,100 tonnes
I suspect the above three Items need to be considered together. The total cargo capacity is likely 10,000 tonnes such that any combination of fuel, ammunition and stores can be carried up to this limit (also keeping in mind where the load is stored for stability).
Mobile Equipment - Davie says none, Navy says 1,000 to 1,500 lane meters, Seaspan just says deck space available, but not how much. I don't think the lane meters are correct. That appears to be left over from the 2006 specification which can be found in this article ( Defense Industry Daily ). I suspect it is as Seaspan says - just available space on deck, which would likely displace other stores.
For the first question, I believe the answer is yes. The Asterix is a converted cargo ship. I don't believe it will be hardened like a purpose build JSS would be. The JSS must be able to operate in contested waters. In such waters, it would become a high priority target. How much this costs can be debated, but it certainly is not free. Just equipping it with CMS330 probably added a big chunk to the cost. I believe some sort of purpose build JSS was needed and as much as I like Asterix (and Obelix for that matter, I still have all of the original comics), these need to be seen for what they are, a stop gap. I suspect this is why the DOD does not even want to discuss getting the Obelix as it would likely take funding away from what they really want, which is a warship, not a civilian ship.
For the second question, well it is Canada, so we will certainly be paying more than we should. For that premium we keep jobs (such that a huge % of that money ends up back in the govt coffers), capability and intellectual property within the country - If that is worth the cost I leave it to each individual to decide for themselves - some put more stock into jobs etc than others. Politically it is a no-brainer, jobs buy votes. And @John Fedup, yes, we pay real living wages in BC.
As for the specs, right now I believe nothing I have read. Sources I have seen are all over the place, the following sources I give: the Davie presentation and the Navy Recognition article (from @Albedo's post #2148) and Seaspan's Website .
To compare, key items:
Helicopters CH-148 - Davie says 1 spot, 2 hangers, Navy says 4 spots and 4 hangers, Seaspan says 1 spots, 2 hangers - Probably 1 landing spot and 2 hangers
Marine Fuel - Davie says 7,000-10,000 tonnes, Navy says 10,000 tonnes, Seaspan says 6,000 tonnes
Aviation Fuel - Davie says 700 tonnes, Navy says 1,300 tonnes, Seaspan says 875 tonnes
Ammunition - Davie does not say, Navy says 1,100 tonnes, Seaspan says 1,100 tonnes
I suspect the above three Items need to be considered together. The total cargo capacity is likely 10,000 tonnes such that any combination of fuel, ammunition and stores can be carried up to this limit (also keeping in mind where the load is stored for stability).
Mobile Equipment - Davie says none, Navy says 1,000 to 1,500 lane meters, Seaspan just says deck space available, but not how much. I don't think the lane meters are correct. That appears to be left over from the 2006 specification which can be found in this article ( Defense Industry Daily ). I suspect it is as Seaspan says - just available space on deck, which would likely displace other stores.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Huge mess of conflicting information. Much has been reported that the design is more a modified Bonn type than the original Berlin with an enlarged superstructure. I can not see how a 173m AOR can have a two spot landing deck. A look at the Karel Doorman should convince anyone that this is highly unlikely. 1000 to 1500 lane meters of vehicle space with a roro capability was stipulated in the very earliest designs but I believe once the off the shelf design was selected it has been deleted as the Bonn Class doesnt have this ability.
Can anyone here provide an AOR in service that is built to warship standards regarding damage control and protection? I find this difficult to believe as most specs that I can find are built to commercial standards with some enhanced features.
Once the structure of the hull and superstructure is completed we will have a better idea of ability. Until then or the GOTD releases detailed information we will wait.
Can anyone here provide an AOR in service that is built to warship standards regarding damage control and protection? I find this difficult to believe as most specs that I can find are built to commercial standards with some enhanced features.
Once the structure of the hull and superstructure is completed we will have a better idea of ability. Until then or the GOTD releases detailed information we will wait.
There is some high-end kit on the JSS:
Communications: Tactical communications for JSS [CS19D2] | Jane's 360
CMS330: Seaspan brings in Lockheed Martin for Canadian Joint Support Ship construction and Seaspan and Lockheed Martin Canada partner for work on the Joint Support Ships - Seaspan
Helicopter handling: Indal to deliver helicopter handling systems for Canadian Joint Support Ships
Integrated platform management system: Seaspan contracts L3 MAPPS for Canadian JSS deliveries
Saab AMB radar: Saab to deliver Sea Giraffe AMB radars for Canada’s Joint Support Ships | Jane's 360
It's also getting a full CBRN capability, apparently, if this link is to be believed: Joint support ship - Canada.ca, as well as a 45-bed hospital, a second-line helicopter repair capability, two phalanx, 4 RWS (calibre unknown, but probably .50), nixie and degaussing. Reputedly a very comprehensive communications suite as well, which makes sense, given its JSS role. All that stuff is expensive.
Also important to remember that the total cost of these ships is the through-life cost, over 30 years.
Communications: Tactical communications for JSS [CS19D2] | Jane's 360
CMS330: Seaspan brings in Lockheed Martin for Canadian Joint Support Ship construction and Seaspan and Lockheed Martin Canada partner for work on the Joint Support Ships - Seaspan
Helicopter handling: Indal to deliver helicopter handling systems for Canadian Joint Support Ships
Integrated platform management system: Seaspan contracts L3 MAPPS for Canadian JSS deliveries
Saab AMB radar: Saab to deliver Sea Giraffe AMB radars for Canada’s Joint Support Ships | Jane's 360
It's also getting a full CBRN capability, apparently, if this link is to be believed: Joint support ship - Canada.ca, as well as a 45-bed hospital, a second-line helicopter repair capability, two phalanx, 4 RWS (calibre unknown, but probably .50), nixie and degaussing. Reputedly a very comprehensive communications suite as well, which makes sense, given its JSS role. All that stuff is expensive.
Also important to remember that the total cost of these ships is the through-life cost, over 30 years.
Attachments
Last edited:
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
This article seems to sum it up quite well
From the article
From the article
The MV Asterix is an excellent stop gap, It was necessary to fill a critical role temporarily. But it was never designed to fit what the RCN ultimately wants. Not that the JSS is, but I think the JSS is much closer.
This would seem to suggest that the RCN has started AOPV sea trials: Canadian Forces on Twitter
Maybe my old eyes are deceiving me, but has the prop on the model changed from 5 blades to 6 from the latest image that Calculus posted?
And if so is that a deviation from the UK and Australian versions and what implications would this mean?
I can find photos of models and other images showing four, five and six bladed props. I can think of a number of possibilities but having been involved in developing models of as yet unbuilt ship classes, I would think the most likely one is that it wasn’t specified to the model maker who had to use his or her best judgement. The models tend to get modified as we go along and the design evolves and becomes more definite.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, all speculation at the moment: All sorts of reasons as to prop blade configuration from a propulsion POV but ASM considerations may be the main driver in blade selection.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
At some point (distant no doubt) the Kingston class will have to be replaced. A higher speed OPV class is needed for the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Probably having a dedicated mine warfare class is best but no sign of anything being purposed yet that I am aware of.