AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Cloud Cover]

The Joint Support Ship program and the MV Asterix: a Fiscal Analysis

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/RP-2021-029-C--joint-support-ship-program-mv-asterix-fiscal-analysis--programme-navires-soutien-interarmees-nm-asterix-analyse-financiere

Here we go again.

The cost of the provision of service contracts of the Asterix or the potential Obelix cannot be directly compared to the project costs of the JSS. To enable a more apt comparison of the costs of these ships, we construct a scenario in which the Asterix and Obelix are both purchased at the end of the 2022-23 fiscal year, when the initial five-year contract of the Asterix expires. Net of any costs associated with this initial contract, we estimate a total cost of approximately $1.4 billion for the purchase of two Davie vessels. This is lower than the government’s JSS project cost of $4.4 billion ($4.1 billion plus a 7 per cent provincial sales tax), and our estimate of the JSS project of $4.1 billion.3
An assessment of the capabilities of the Asterix and Obelix as commercial vessels converted for military purposes versus those of the built-for-purpose Joint Support Ship is outside the scope of this report.

 

[MarkOttawa]

So for an extra $1.4B the RCN could have four vice two supply ships. Given the costs of build-in-Canada for everything that sounds like a real shipbuilding bargain to me--and Oblelix would help Liberals in Quebec.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cloud Cover]

I thought the Davie order book was full with ice breaker conversions. Yes, 4 is better than 2 but where do the people come from??

 

[Navy_Pete]

The Joint Support Ship program and the MV Asterix: a Fiscal Analysis

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/RP-2021-029-C--joint-support-ship-program-mv-asterix-fiscal-analysis--programme-navires-soutien-interarmees-nm-asterix-analyse-financiere

Here we go again.

The cost of the provision of service contracts of the Asterix or the potential Obelix cannot be directly compared to the project costs of the JSS. To enable a more apt comparison of the costs of these ships, we construct a scenario in which the Asterix and Obelix are both purchased at the end of the 2022-23 fiscal year, when the initial five-year contract of the Asterix expires. Net of any costs associated with this initial contract, we estimate a total cost of approximately $1.4 billion for the purchase of two Davie vessels. This is lower than the government’s JSS project cost of $4.4 billion ($4.1 billion plus a 7 per cent provincial sales tax), and our estimate of the JSS project of $4.1 billion.3
An assessment of the capabilities of the Asterix and Obelix as commercial vessels converted for military purposes versus those of the built-for-purpose Joint Support Ship is outside the scope of this report.

For context, that's two used ships that were converted over to tankers (all with civilian standards) compared to two brand new JSS ships with more capabilities. It's not even an apples and oranges if you look at the projected lifespan for both options as there Asterix and Obelix will already start with 20+ years of wear on the hull, piping, wiring etc.

 

[Uzlu]

It's not even an apples and oranges if you look at the projected lifespan for both options as there Asterix and Obelix will already start with 20+ years of wear on the hull, piping, wiring etc.

MarineTraffic.com claims that MV Obelix was built in 2008.  Wikipedia claims that MV Asterix was completed on 1 May 2010.

 

[Stoker]

MarineTraffic.com claims that MV Obelix was built in 2008.  Wikipedia claims that MV Asterix was completed on 1 May 2010.

That's correct the ship started service in 2010, its still decade plus old hull that is only supposed to last 20-25 years. Not to mention they are driving it like they stole it. 500 to 600M to buy the thing after its been heavily used, no thanks. Regardless of what the PBO says the JSS are getting built regardless.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

But 2 AOR's will never be enough, 3 minimum and 4 better, even if they spend a good amount of time in hot layup.

 

[Stoker]

But 2 AOR's will never be enough, 3 minimum and 4 better, even if they spend a good amount of time in hot layup.

I guess you're missing the crewing and cost issues.

 

[CBH99]

I guess you're missing the crewing and cost issues.

Mind elaborating on the cost issues? 

Or are you referencing their procurement cost in general?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Mind elaborating on the cost issues? 

Or are you referencing their procurement cost in general?

Most of the total through life costs is crew and maintenance, not initial capital investment. We will struggle to get the bodies needed to keep 2 JSS to sea, along with the rest of the fleet, so more ships will just mean it will be more likely a few hulls will get tied up alongside, retired early, etc. No point having an oiler at the cost of an operational unit, and we don't have a big enough fleet where we would operate on our own anyway. We did manage to get gas for years with no AORs, and even with just Asterix there is usually a number of deployed ships operating on their own that stay gassed up with no major issues.

Sure, it'd be easier, but the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze unless we figure out retention and get a budget increase.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I guess you're missing the crewing and cost issues.

No, hence I mention hot layup. With 3 ships you can have one in refit and one on each coast. With 4 ships, you can have two on each coast. One can be laid up or in refit while the other sails. Or if you have an over seas mission, you can have one relieve the other and still maintain one coast with two. You can also modify the Federal Fleet concept into a sustainable RFA type model. Yes it will cost more, but the ships would last longer and fleet support would improve drastically.

 

[Stoker]

Most of the total through life costs is crew and maintenance, not initial capital investment. We will struggle to get the bodies needed to keep 2 JSS to sea, along with the rest of the fleet, so more ships will just mean it will be more likely a few hulls will get tied up alongside, retired early, etc. No point having an oiler at the cost of an operational unit, and we don't have a big enough fleet where we would operate on our own anyway. We did manage to get gas for years with no AORs, and even with just Asterix there is usually a number of deployed ships operating on their own that stay gassed up with no major issues.

Sure, it'd be easier, but the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze unless we figure out retention and get a budget increase.

I agree the Kingston Class can't RAS anyways and they operate without that capability, AOPS can but again don't need to RAS really and that leaves either 12 Halifax or CSC. Train more people and more resources for operating costs.

 

[Underway]

AOPS can't but again don't need to RAS really...

AOPS is rigged to do heavy and light jackstays for sure.  Not entirely sure about fuel/liquids.

 

[YZT580]

dnd
The authors of the report are both economists, one majoring in agriculture the other with the
dnd.  Their comparison is strictly on cost of purchasing 4 hulls: 2 purpose built, the others modified.  And from what I recall, the purchase price of the AORs includes operating costs over an extended period which is not part of the purchase price of the other two.  It would be better to maintain the two conversions on a lease or lease back and utilize them as reserves and as response vessels for foreign interventions i.e. relief efforts and as off-shore supply vessels for UN assistance. But they are not suitable for any areas involving risk. Civilian hulls just don't work in wartime.  The Brits found that out in the Falklands

 

[Stoker]

AOPS is rigged to do heavy and light jackstays for sure.  Not entirely sure about fuel/liquids.

My mistake they can indeed RAS, what I meant to say it can RAS but with its fuel capability, where they will be using it and storage they can get away with not needing that capability.

 

[Stoker]

dnd
The authors of the report are both economists, one majoring in agriculture the other with the
dnd.  Their comparison is strictly on cost of purchasing 4 hulls: 2 purpose built, the others modified.  And from what I recall, the purchase price of the AORs includes operating costs over an extended period which is not part of the purchase price of the other two.  It would be better to maintain the two conversions on a lease or lease back and utilize them as reserves and as response vessels for foreign interventions i.e. relief efforts and as off-shore supply vessels for UN assistance. But they are not suitable for any areas involving risk. Civilian hulls just don't work in wartime.  The Brits found that out in the Falklands

Everyone says why not buy and keep them in reserve. For one thing I can't see the RCN or government having the resources to keep a ship alongside in the few times you may need it. A few years ago we had that massive Hurricane in the Caribbean and Asterix was in Halifax, guess what never sent. Where would you dock massive ships like that in reserve, pay a crew, maintenance etc. Sorry can't see that and I would never want to see the RCN with finite budgets having to look after them unless the fleet massively expands in the post Covid world. AOPS like them or hate them has a fair HDAR capability.

 

[Dana381]

dnd
It would be better to maintain the two conversions on a lease or lease back and utilize them as reserves and as response vessels for foreign interventions i.e. relief efforts and as off-shore supply vessels for UN assistance. But they are not suitable for any areas involving risk. Civilian hulls just don't work in wartime.  The Brits found that out in the Falklands

I was thinking along those lines also. What if the RCN kept the Asterix as a reserve crewed ship for AOR duties as well as sea lift and humanitarian relief. I remember seeing a graphic of her under deck vehicle and ammo storage and I think it was a pretty decent size considering sea lift is a secondary mission. In times of disaster response the cargo deck could be used for hospital duties. I understand a true hospital ship would have more specialized equipment however it would be better than nothing. Maybe removable mission kits could be developed to give her OR, lab and diagnostic imaging capabilities. Surly the government could get support for those mods, They could spin it as a humanitarian ship and use it to resupply Nanisivik, RAS, and sea lift most of the time.

 

[Cloud Cover]

When you guys talk about having a ship and crew in reserve, are you suggesting the ship on standby and a crew on standby or do you mean assign the ship to the naval reserve and crew it with reservists?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A ship in reserve could be kept in hot layup with a small crew who might be a mix of Fleet Aux./Reserve & Regular force. It could be used as a training tool for reservists as well, even just at the dockside.

 

[PuckChaser]

I was thinking along those lines also. What if the RCN kept the Asterix as a reserve crewed ship for AOR duties as well as sea lift and humanitarian relief. I remember seeing a graphic of her under deck vehicle and ammo storage and I think it was a pretty decent size considering sea lift is a secondary mission. In times of disaster response the cargo deck could be used for hospital duties. I understand a true hospital ship would have more specialized equipment however it would be better than nothing. Maybe removable mission kits could be developed to give her OR, lab and diagnostic imaging capabilities. Surly the government could get support for those mods, They could spin it as a humanitarian ship and use it to resupply Nanisivik, RAS, and sea lift most of the time.

Not going to be an option based on the Government's response to the PBO: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/11/statement-by-the-department-of-national-defence-on-the-parliamentary-budget-officers-report-on-the-joint-support-ships.html

The proposed life expectancy of MV Asterix of 40 years from the time of its conversion is unlikely to be realized without significant investments. The operational and maintenance costs that would be required to keep MV Asterix operating would not represent value for money.

My secret hope is that this new found respect for "value for money" permeates to all defense procurements in that we're wasting millions of dollars every year keeping 40 year old ships, aircraft and trucks on the roads with expensive parts and thousands of maintenance hours.