AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Kirkhill]

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

This is a proven, sea-worthy vessel.

This is what happens when you let the Navy get its hands on it

And Colin -  I think we would have to by more kit fill that beast. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would cut most RO/RO down by at least 1 deck, most are not the most stable ships

 

[Underway]

Not sure if this has been posted before but oooh glossy brochure.

I find the "modest capability" comment very entertaining.  It's like they are saying don't believe everything you hear/read about this ship.

 

[Kirkhill]

Modest Capability .....

50% of the requirement (2 vessels) or 33% of the hope.

Or....

Infinitely more than there was last month.

 

[Underway]

Modest Capability .....

50% of the requirement (2 vessels) or 33% of the hope.

Or....

Infinitely more than there was last month.

Actually I'm thinking more on the lines of this is a civilian ship vs JSS is a warship.  The capability gap is significant between it and the JSS.  It's supposed to do one thing.  Refuel and restock ships.

 

[MilEME09]

Modest Capability .....

50% of the requirement (2 vessels) or 33% of the hope.

Or....

Infinitely more than there was last month.

Look at the bright side, Resolve is almost done, and if memory serves me correct she should be launching in about two months here. Making it the last project started and the first to finishing within this whole ship building plan.


EDIT: infact, she's almost ready for duty

http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=26679:davie-shipbuilding-unveils-project-resolve-naval-support-vessel&Itemid=257

JULY 21, 2017 — Davie Shipbuilding, Lévis, Quebec, Canada, yesterday unveiled the Asterix, the Resolve-class naval support vessel created by converting a containership in a project taking just under two years and involving Davie's 1,369 staff together with over 900 Canadian suppliers.

Davie says the ship will enter into service with the Royal Canadian Navy by the end of this year as initially planned.

The Resolve-Class naval support ship will be the largest naval platform in service with the Royal Canadian Navy for the foreseeable future and will provide a wide range of functions from at-sea replenishment of fuels and cargo to aviation support, fleet medical support and humanitarian and disaster relief.

The ship has been created in a program involving three levels of innovation for Canada allowing, says Davie, "the delivery of a most needed ship in a timely manner and with the best value for Canadian taxpayers." First, instead of building a ship from new, a modern containership has been converted by the shipyard into a state-of-the-art naval support ship. Second, the ship has been privately financed by Davie and will be leased to Canada – that means a fixed, transparent cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Third, Federal Fleet Services, Davie sister company, will operate the ship with a mixed crew of merchant seafarers and Royal Canadian Navy personnel.

Yesterday's unveiling of the ship included an employee appreciation for the Chantier Davie Canada Team as well as a Family Day, a blessing for the ship by the Huron-Wendat Nation and VIP tours onboard.

The traditional breaking of the sacrificial champagne bottle on the bow by the sponsor of the ship in order to bless the ship and her crew was performed by Mrs. Pauline Théberge, spouse of J. Michel Doyon, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec.

 

[Navy_Pete]

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).

They definitely do have their associated costs; the various certification societies have a nice business for reviewing and certifying major equipment and the designs along with the inspectors that are used to verify that the vessel is being maintained to class through life, and there is also the cost of buying/maintaining the standards and training for our personnel in what the standards mean towards through service issues that all add up. 

Yes, we do have our own construction standards, but in some cases they date back to the 1960s and haven't been updated at all to make better use of technology.  We did a comparison of a number of existing civilian standards against the existing RCN ones as well as the new NATO standard and some differences were minor where in other cases the civilian through life inspection regime was actually more strict then ours for things like the hull.  Some of the reasons made a lot of sense, so I think we're in the process of updating some of our processes accordingly, as there were changes to inspection scope and frequency as the ships got older that we don't necessarily do formally (for example).

Being self insured is nice though; we have enough internal bureaucracy wouldn't want to add on a separate external company as well!

 

[Underway]

They definitely do have their associated costs; the various certification societies have a nice business for reviewing and certifying major equipment and the designs along with the inspectors that are used to verify that the vessel is being maintained to class through life, and there is also the cost of buying/maintaining the standards and training for our personnel in what the standards mean towards through service issues that all add up. 

Yes, we do have our own construction standards, but in some cases they date back to the 1960s and haven't been updated at all to make better use of technology.  We did a comparison of a number of existing civilian standards against the existing RCN ones as well as the new NATO standard and some differences were minor where in other cases the civilian through life inspection regime was actually more strict then ours for things like the hull.  Some of the reasons made a lot of sense, so I think we're in the process of updating some of our processes accordingly, as there were changes to inspection scope and frequency as the ships got older that we don't necessarily do formally (for example).

Being self insured is nice though; we have enough internal bureaucracy wouldn't want to add on a separate external company as well!

There is definitely an office in Ottawa who is working with Lloyds on warship build/design rules.  I have no idea why, or what the goal is, but I know it exists.  I'll ask around at work what's the deal and why.  I'm sure insurance of some sort but ???

 

[Kirkhill]

There is definitely an office in Ottawa who is working with Lloyds on warship build/design rules.  I have no idea why, or what the goal is, but I know it exists.  I'll ask around at work what's the deal and why.  I'm sure insurance of some sort but ???

Ottawa was commissioned in 1996.  I wonder how many ships Lloyds has rated and registered since then?  It would certainly be interesting to find out how Lloyds and Ottawa are associating.

 

[jollyjacktar]

There is definitely an office in Ottawa who is working with Lloyds on warship build/design rules.  I have no idea why, or what the goal is, but I know it exists.  I'll ask around at work what's the deal and why.  I'm sure insurance of some sort but ???

That, is the future direction things are moving, is why.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Chris, you be impressed with how far and fast they went with ideas and solutions in 1944, film on the Landing Ship Dock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0kHr3qDG4&list=PL8bQve3Wpo5Da3ZFoai2vIeGJZKOeycsb

 

[Good2Golf]

Chris, you be impressed with how far and fast they went with ideas and solutions in 1944, film on the Landing Ship Dock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0kHr3qDG4&list=PL8bQve3Wpo5Da3ZFoai2vIeGJZKOeycsb

[slight tangent]

Is it wrong of me to focus on the LSD's sailor shooting the AA-gun at 5:14 with his helmet's chin-strap undone and him having to hold down the top of his helmet with his 'free' hand, and be reminded that there always seems to be a balance between American ingenuity and apparent lapses in common sense?

Golden Generation equivalent of the Millennial below? 

[/slight tangent]

 

[Kirkhill]

Suitably impressed - although OSHA may have had a few things to say about managing lines.

And G2G - you're one of those attention to detail people aren't you?

 

[Navy_Pete]

There is definitely an office in Ottawa who is working with Lloyds on warship build/design rules.  I have no idea why, or what the goal is, but I know it exists.  I'll ask around at work what's the deal and why.  I'm sure insurance of some sort but ???

There are a couple of sections working on various aspects of it; understanding what the civilian standards means to the ships we're getting (from a general perspective) is one part.  Another is looking at how we do the (internal) certification for the basic 'safe at sea' equipment to try and learn from people that do this for a living and improve our own policies.

It's mostly the old NMPRO section (that is now in DNPS under MEPM), but basically the naval material assurance policy people, with others from the various technical sections as well.  People working on the ISSCs get sucked in as well from time to time.

I think if I ever personally get posted to one of those policy jobs I'll lose my will to live, but glad some people love that kind of work.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Project Resolve will be the RCN's first real exposure to modern civilian standards, so hopefully they take a good look, see what they like, what they can live with and what they can't. I look forward to the Astreix refueling the Harry DeWolfe for the for the first time while doing vertical re supply with a Cyclone. Speaking of which, since they are leasing the ship, how about leasing 2 S-92 for the air detachment?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Why would we lease instead of using our own?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think Colin feels that, if the Asterix's heldet's purpose is to effect resupply by air, then why not lease and use civilian helicopters to do that too, and free the actual military helicopter to carry out their real missions of fighting surface crafts, submarines and extending the sensor range of their mother ship. If we are not going to use the Asterix as an actual deployed ship that is part of the ops (as we did with the old AOR's), then why put operational helps on board?

I believe that't his point.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Correct, I wonder if we have enough airframes to equip all the ships and leasing helicopters would reduce airframe hours on the ASW machines. As I recall the RFA is already doing this.

 

[Kirkhill]

Correct, I wonder if we have enough airframes to equip all the ships and leasing helicopters would reduce airframe hours on the ASW machines. As I recall the RFA is already doing this.

That way lies madness....

Next you will be proposing that other tasks in environments where bullets are not a risk factor could be civilianized - things like SAR, Air/Space Surveillance (Satellites and UAV), Maintenance, other Logistics.

Then the manning limit of 65,000 or whatever it currently is could be applied to uniformed personnel tasked with going into harm's way.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pook: Earlier:

Contracting our Rotary SAR? Plus Australia’s Coastwatch
http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/?p=1724

Contracting our Rotary SAR? Part 2
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/mark-collins-contracting-our-rotary-sar-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa