Canadas JSS project in trouble

**kato** · 01 Jun 08,, 18:46

As Afghanistan has shown, getting into a theater isn't that much of a problem...

Look beyond Afghanistan. Exactly how many opposed amphibious assaults have there been in the past 20 years, worldwide, even in full wars? Right - one.

**jtl310** · 01 Jun 08,, 21:12

I have some questions about the JSS spec this is what i found:

JSS- Multi-role Support Ship

Displacement: 28,000 tonnes
Length/Beam/Draft (m): 210/28/9.5

Crew Size: 165 ship’s crew; 76 air detachment; 95 mission personnel
Speed: 21 knots sustained maximum
Range: 10,800 nautical miles at 15 knots

#Armament
"limited self-defence capability, albeit one that is substantially stronger than current PROTECTEUR class capabilities" Quoted from Article
*Helicopters- 3-4 Cyclones

#Survivability
Self Defence: Active & Passive
Damaged Stability: Enhanced Two Compartment

First Year Ice: Yes

#Cargo capacity
*Fuel: 7,000 to 10,000 tonnes
*JP 5 (aviation fuel): 650 to 1,300 tonnes
*Ammunition: 1,100 square metres (anyone can explain why its stated in metres)

*Deck Space (inc. upper deck): 1,400 lane metres
*Container System: up to 40 TEU containers stored externally between RAS posts
*Jetty Independence: Yes

The Joint Support Ship Programme | cdnmilitary.ca

The JSS is an AOR with sealift capabilities to transport equipment for a battle group of 650 soldiers. The vessel can act as a Joint Task Force Headquarters (JTF HQ) for situations in which HQ cannot be established in theatre. JSS will hold a medical suite, an operating room, and can also act as a field hospital.
That is all the specs i find everywhere, my question is how many troops can the JSS hold along with equipment? can it hold 650 troops along with all its equipment? or is it just 150 as toby stated?

Because if it can hold a task group of 650 soldiers including their equipment, the cost can be justified. Now if all it can hold is equipment and oil, then paying 2.9 billion + for 3 ships is too much!

**fitz** · 01 Jun 08,, 21:32

Originally Posted by kato

Look beyond Afghanistan. Exactly how many opposed amphibious assaults have there been in the past 20 years, worldwide, even in full wars? Right - one.

Which means....

That's right, absolutely nothing.

**kato** · 01 Jun 08,, 22:06

Originally Posted by fitz

Which means....

That's right, absolutely nothing.

Sure. But it infers that there's no reason for Canada to suddenly obtain a (new) amphibious capability.

**fitz** · 02 Jun 08,, 12:39

Originally Posted by kato

Sure. But it infers that there's no reason for Canada to suddenly obtain a (new) amphibious capability.

But they are not obtaining an amphibious assault capability and the fact that during some arbitrarily arrived at time period there have been no major opposed amphibious assaults by itself is absolutely meaningless.

**kato** · 02 Jun 08,, 20:36

(double post, please delete)

**kato** · 02 Jun 08,, 20:39

What i mean is:

Canada is not obtaining an amphibious capability (or intending to do so), since they have no reason to do so.

A reason for a different choice could be amphibious operations gaining notable significance in more recent operations showing a current dependence on Allied assets in this field (which hasn't happened).

**Prairie Canuck** · 02 Jun 08,, 20:40

Originally Posted by kato

Sure. But it infers that there's no reason for Canada to suddenly obtain a (new) amphibious capability.

So when Canada is confronted in the future with the task of conducting a landing then and only then would they purchase a ship capable of putting troops and equipment ashore?
Please don't tell me we have allies that will do that for us. The whole point of acquiring these capabilities is not having to continually beg and borrow from anyone else. To be able to say "thanks but we can handle this one ourselves" would be more than just a source of pride it's what a prosperous and mature country should do.

The US, UK, France, Italy, India, Spain, Netherlands,Thailand, Australia, Greece, Mexico, Japan, Brazil, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Ukraine, Russia, and even New Zealand all have the capability to transport troops and their equipment and then put them on shore to one degree or another. Does New Zealand know something Canada doesn't?

**kato** · 02 Jun 08,, 20:52

Is that minimal source of pride in something that the country might need once in 25 years worth that much money?
It usually isn't. Otherwise Canada would still have carriers.

Canada is a member of NATO. The whole point of NATO's military collaboration (collaboration beyond that mutual defence thing) is splitting capabilities between nations, in order to create procurement and R&D priorities. And it has worked, for almost 60 years now.

**Prairie Canuck** · 02 Jun 08,, 21:49

Leadmark, a paper mapping the navies' future, identified sealift as a capability it will require. They mention that Canada will not outfit it's forces to make opposed landings but does detail the need to land on unprepared (beaches) areas and defend the forces on shore from the sea. From what I've read it's a typically Canadian compromise of no longer trusting private Ro-Ro carriers to transport equipment but not going all out with an LPD. There is also mention of being more independently capable.

http://www.marinelink.com/Story/Cana...ment-3778.html

My conclusion is that after Canada had to forcefully take control of a private transporter who was refusing to unload Canadian equipment on its way back from Bosnia because he thought he could negotiate for more cash that they included the transport capability in the plans for the JSS. Once you add that it's an easy jump to wanting to add abilities to land those vehicles on a beach. This wouldn't be too far out of Canada's role as a medium Navy with a few of a larger navies' capabilities.

**jtl310** · 02 Jun 08,, 22:58

Originally Posted by Prairie Canuck

Leadmark, a paper mapping the navies' future, identified sealift as a capability it will require. They mention that Canada will not outfit it's forces to make opposed landings but does detail the need to land on unprepared (beaches) areas and defend the forces on shore from the sea. From what I've read it's a typically Canadian compromise of no longer trusting private Ro-Ro carriers to transport equipment but not going all out with an LPD. There is also mention of being more independently capable.

My conclusion is that after Canada had to forcefully take control of a private transporter who was refusing to unload Canadian equipment on its way back from Bosnia because he thought he could negotiate for more cash that they included the transport capability in the plans for the JSS. Once you add that it's an easy jump to wanting to add abilities to land those vehicles on a beach. This wouldn't be too far out of Canada's role as a medium Navy with a few of a larger navies' capabilities.

Few lines out of the 'Joint Support Ship Statement of Operational Requiement'

3.2.8'At a minimum the ship has a self supporting stern ramp that, with its ballast tank capability, allows landing craft and lighterage to link to the ship. The ship can thus land vehicles and containers when there are no harbor facilities."

4.1.2.4 " The JS ship will be able to conduct vertical replenishment (VERTREP) and helicopter in flight refueling (HIFR).

Also under 4.1.3
It stats the ship should be able to launch and recover CH-53 sea stallions, chinooks and V-22 ospreys.

4.1.4.1- the ship's LCU should be able to transport equipment weighing up to 20 tonnes, and be able to transport up to 30 tonnes worth. The crane can lift 20 tonnes in sea, 30 tonnes at the dock.

I know prairie canuck has read it, but if anyone else wants to know what the Navy wants from the JSS, then its a good read, especially the mission objectives, environment of operations and future threats.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd..._sor_v_4.1.pdf

Also states a minimum requirement of 3 ships, but 4 would be better.

2.9 billion break down- 2.1 billion to build 3 ships and 800 million in contract for in service support for 20 years.
Which means each ship will cost 700 million, I never realized just how many functions they were squeezing into this ship its alot! Also there are a few constraints on the size of the ship to be able to port in halifax and esquimalt, beam restriction to pass through panama and trade-offs to operational performance will be made in favor of cost.

**kato** · 02 Jun 08,, 23:06

Originally Posted by Prairie Canuck

From what I've read it's a typically Canadian compromise of no longer trusting private Ro-Ro carriers to transport equipment but not going all out with an LPD.

Probably has to do with the market. Same reason everyone else is scrambling for sealift ships too - RoRos are increasingly sought after on the commercial market, and in-time charter can't necessarily be guaranteed (anymore). There are a number of solutions to this, Canada is going the pricier one.

**Prairie Canuck** · 08 Jun 08,, 05:15

Ah yes, other solutions. I have to say I would prefer some other solutions than the JSS but there are some good arguments for it also. The debate is whether these arguments have enough merit to justify the JSS over the others. the combination they're shooting for solves many issues but if one is transporting and being used for command how does it also replenish the task group?

The obvious is to build separate platforms for the missions you need. Many have said that 3 - 4 oiler/replenishment ships dedicated to the fleet and 3 LPD or LPH for transport and resupply of ground forces is the way. The most common argument against is the amount of crew needed to man all these vessels with the Navy having trouble recruiting and manning for their present needs.
What about other options? Any "outside the box" suggestions?

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Jun 08,, 06:10

Originally Posted by kato

Canada is a member of NATO. The whole point of NATO's military collaboration (collaboration beyond that mutual defence thing) is splitting capabilities between nations, in order to create procurement and R&D priorities. And it has worked, for almost 60 years now.

Canada is one of two NATO countries where crossing the Atlantic is a military necessity. The other NATO member, of course, is the United States.

For UNPROFOR and KFOR commitments, no ally stepped up to offer transport and the Canadians had to resort to commercial transport, resulting in the KATIE fiasco.

I remind you that European members found relying on AEROFLAUT to be unacceptable. So, it should be no surprise that Canadians demand the JSS.