to put in perspective though, that is the costs over the next 20 years or so, and not just the delivery cost?
AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
- Thread starter Ex-Dragoon
- Start date
And the Halifax Skyline and the Young people populating it thank the NSS. Halifax has absolutely Boomed since that 2011 announcement.There have been at least 25-30 Construction Cranes above the City since 2012. Something about a many Decade National Commit to build stuff.
I doubt the NSS has that much much effect on the young population moving there. More has to do with high wages in other industries with work from home or FIFO. Somewhat lower hosing costs, and local government willing to allow building to happen.
I know lots of people who moved back there for the high wages and steady jobs being offered by Irving only to come back West for work. Lot of promises were not met nor honored by Irving.
The fact that the Canadian Government has been pouring money (50 mil here, 300mil over here, 100mil there and the list goes on) into Irving over the past 10-15 years is appalling that they still can not get any other major steady contracts. But the way they hemorrhage money makes bombardier look like amateurs.
Maxman1
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,059
- Points
- 960
- Reaction score
- 337
- Points
- 780
How about only building 8 or 10 CSCs (maybe even less if the manning isn't there), and building 4 Karel Doorman's in addition to the 2 Berlin's.
They are for all intents the JSS we thought we wanted. Tanking spots on both sides, two helo spots capable of up to Chinook, 6 helos in the hangar, 2000 lane meters and a both roll on / roll off plus a steel beach with boats (but no space eating well deck), good medical facilities, can embark roughly a company.
Not only an AOR, but can concentrate the helos for higher intensity helo ops, and perfect for HADR.
- Reaction score
- 5,288
- Points
- 1,040
Wow, that's nuts. Apparently the Abraham had gotten contaminated with bilge water as well.
Potalbe water on ships is one area we are really cautious on, and may go overboard on the decontamination procedures, but I'm okay with that. (Still can't believe the AOPV situation, and we basically accepted the PMO just eating it from ISI and not fixing it).
https://news.usni.org/2023/05/17/pr...board-carriers-uss-nimitz-uss-abraham-lincoln
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,224
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 1,030
- Points
- 1,060
I think thats the actual cost might even be low?
Backgrounder - Understanding the cost of the Joint Support Ship project - Canada.ca
Together with the Canadian Surface Combatant and the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, Canada’s two new Joint Support Ships (JSS) will form the core of the future Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) surface fleet.
- Reaction score
- 5,288
- Points
- 1,040
@suffolkowner It's pretty typical for in service to be about 2-3 times acquisition costs. It does go up pretty steeply when you get past end of life, or if you have one off pieces of equipment no one else uses. The cost for special orders and retooling (if you can get it) is a pretty high premium as well as large quantities.
They did leave out that the acquisition costs includes training, infrastructure and contingency, as well as IP and TDP. None of those are insignificant, but no point buying a ship that no one knows how to operate or maintain and no jetty to support it.
The AJISS cost estimate is an absolute rectal pluck, as they wanted us to guess at ship disposal costs 40 years out when the design was still up in the air. I think we put down $50M or something per ship, which was assuming the environmental cleanup and demil costs will be offset by scrap value, as well as inflation not going through the roof. But in 2060 or whatever it was $50M might get you a coffee, so who knows.
They did leave out that the acquisition costs includes training, infrastructure and contingency, as well as IP and TDP. None of those are insignificant, but no point buying a ship that no one knows how to operate or maintain and no jetty to support it.
The AJISS cost estimate is an absolute rectal pluck, as they wanted us to guess at ship disposal costs 40 years out when the design was still up in the air. I think we put down $50M or something per ship, which was assuming the environmental cleanup and demil costs will be offset by scrap value, as well as inflation not going through the roof. But in 2060 or whatever it was $50M might get you a coffee, so who knows.
- Reaction score
- 895
- Points
- 1,060
No, because that would be useful and we can’t have that happen …
Prairie canuck
Member
- Reaction score
- 163
- Points
- 780
Just curious, no idea if it's feasible, what if they were to add 60m to the middle/rear of an AOR hull? Ice capable limited sea lift? it is a fairly wide vessel.
- Reaction score
- 13,088
- Points
- 1,010
No…no…no…for the love of god, no…
- Reaction score
- 22,104
- Points
- 1,090
So, what if they were to scrap the current design completely, Frankenstein it, and see how well it floats and fights?
- Reaction score
- 7,347
- Points
- 1,160
Do I have competition?
- Reaction score
- 895
- Points
- 1,060
can’t be done without a whole new ship design from super structure, to propulsion, to storage and layout. Even anchors, cables, bearings, machinery, propellor size, shaft size, number of screws, bulkhead, HVAC, electrical generation and distribution would all change substantially.
Prairie canuck
Member
- Reaction score
- 163
- Points
- 780
Oh well, just a question. I just saw the present hull on a LHD type as advantageous to taking it into northern waters. Many more options exist for deploying land forces with a ship than via C130 or C17.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,224
- Points
- 1,160
AOR is a very different role than a landing ship. I would like to see a LST type vessel, mainly for domestic northern ops, manned mainly by Fleet Auxiliary. I do wish we had gotten the two Mistrals that had been offered to us. It would have changed how the RCN operates and what it could do. The LST would cost you one of the Kingston replacements, but a Mistral type landing ship will definitely cost you a CSC
- Reaction score
- 3,426
- Points
- 1,160
I mean with flight delays and/or straight up no shows, probably be faster to deploy troops via ship anyways.
- Reaction score
- 7,347
- Points
- 1,160
US Marines are mucking around with this variant of the OSV - The Stern Landing Vessel (are we not amused).
Marine Corps to start testing out Stern Landing Vessel in March - Breaking Defense
The Stern Landing Vessel is the precursor to the Landing Ship Medium, the new vessel introduced by Force Design 2030.
breakingdefense.com
The OSV platform seems to be attracting a fair amount of attention as a viable base for development of both crewed and uncrewed vessels.
Similar threads
