Dan Middlemiss, 17 November 2020.
Today, Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer released a detailed cost projection for the two supply ships for the Canadian Navy [1]. The PBO analysis compares the overall costs of procuring the ships from Seaspan under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), and the costs of procuring, and eventually purchasing, two ships constructed by Chantier Davie Canada Inc.
The PBO report indicates that the latter option would result in a total cost of $1.430 billion compared to the total of $4.053 billion of continuing with the current approach of acquiring two Joint Support Ships (JSS) from Seaspan.
In addition, the PBO analysis indicates that obtaining the two ships from Davie would provide the vessels to the Canadian Navy considerably earlier than would the option of continuing with the construction program schedule at Seaspan.
The PBO report is careful to point out that its cost assessment makes no conclusions about the relative capabilities of the supply ships constructed at Davie.
References:
- See, Parliamentary Budget Officer, The Joint Support Ship Program and the MV Asterix: A Fiscal Analysis, 17 November 2020. Accessed at: 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
5 thoughts on “PBO Releases Cost Comparisons for Canada’s Two Supply Ships”
Interesting article from the PBO. The MV Asterix has been doing a superb job for the RCN doing what a Naval Supply ship is supposed to do, plus a limited HA/DR capability. Looks like we could have acquired at least 3 “Asterix” Class AOR’s for roughly one Protecteur Class JSS for the cost. If Canada went with the “Asterix” fleet to re-supply the RCN fleet of Frigates, we could have spent the extra money acquiring a true Amphibious Sealift capability for the RCN (perhaps 2/3 Juan Carlos class LHDs?).
The advantages of a JSS over a Asterix type ship.
– a mine-avoidance degaussing system;
– systems to detect and protect against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats;
– a dual redundant propulsion system;
– damage control capabilities that meet military standards;
– a cyber-resilient command management system;
– self-defence capabilities, including a combat management system, naval remote weapon systems and close-in weapon systems;
– a hangar and flight deck that can support the Cyclone aircraft; and
– certified, fitted magazines to transport specialized ammunitions, such as torpedoes.
Quite a bit of difference actually.
Hi Richard. Some of these systems are, and could be fitted on the Asterix class Tankers or LHD Amphibious Sealift ships such as the Juan Carlos class as well. It is too late to change things now for the JSS, but at the very least, another Asterix class tanker for “backup” when the JSS goes into major refits would be prudent.
You can’t fit degaussing as it is something that needs to be fitted when the ship is built, a citadel and associated filter systems, airlocks again can’t be retrofitted in a conversion. The same for another shaftline and engine, cost prohibitive, along with actual magazines and proper DC/FF capability. So yes you can retrofit better defence systems but all of that increases costs. It would be much better to buy a new backup AOR such as the Tide Class, then we know what we’re getting and much cheaper in the long run.
I acknowledge your comments Richard. A Tide class AOR backup is an interesting theory but I can only see it being built here in Canada which would increase costs in the long run. The Spanish Cantabria class might be a better option as a ‘backup” as it would be cheaper than a Tide class and also has 4 RAS station positions for both fueling and stores at the same time, but again would only be built here in Canada.