By Les Mader, 28 October 2023
The keel laying of the second Joint Support Ship (future HMCS Preserver) on 27 October was a very happy event for the navy and the Armed Forces. It seems to indicate that the Seaspan Shipyard has got its production procedures running well. It is noteworthy that nearly half of the ship’s structural components are currently under construction or already completed. Thus, we should be able to expect that the actual building of the ship will proceed relatively quickly. Construction of the first JSS, the future HMCS Protecteur, is expected to be finished in 2025, while the second ship has a completion date of 2027.
If only we could have a third and fourth JSS – HMCS Provider? HMCS Portage? One can always hope!
9 thoughts on “Excellent NSS News”
We could, we just don’t have the resources in the RCN to support a third or fourth ship.
yes to a third AOR. HMCS Provider
Yes & yes! We do need at least a third HMCS Provider JSS. A fourth JSS would also be very useful; HMCS Portage? Love it! If Canada decides not to build a third or fourth JSS, then perhaps invest in a “true” tri-service Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) Amphibious Sealift capability like the Juan Carlos class type vessels. My opinion of course.
Hi David,
Naming a JSS as HMCS Portage would fit in with the sort-of naming convention for Canadian supply ships – name starts with “p” and has a connection to cargo movement. It would also have the advantages of having a direct connection to a Canadian city – Portage la Prairie – and of already having a Canadian-earned battle honour – “Atlantic 1944-45.”
FYI.
Ubique.
Les
I don’t know if any of you speak to those within government or the military. Most of our allies are moving towards acquiring amphibious assault ships. South Korea is looking to develop an aircraft carrier…and they aren’t a superpower. I read a paper recently published by a military officer advocating for this capability. Is there re-consideration now to acquire at least one ship?
Hello Justin. I have also been advocating for several years now that Canada needs a “true” Amphibious Sealift Capability that includes a Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) component to it as well. It took Australia about 20 years to develop their Sealift Capability with the Juan Carlos class LHDs and they are still not quite there yet! I’m afraid that one LHD will not “cut-the-mustard” as they say. Canada needs at least a 2 and probably 3 LHD fleet (one per coast and one in ramp-up/ramp down mode). I invite you to take a close look at the Aussie Canberra class for yourself. So if Canada wants this capability for the CAF, best we get on with it very soon!
Hello Justin,
The Canadian use of LHDs has been a topic of the Broadsides Forum for years. Personally, I consider them to be an expensive nice-to-have for Canada due to their lack of an Arctic capability. That is why I suggested the employment of multi-purpose Landing Platforms Arctic (LPA).
See CNR 18.2 pp 23 -27 for more on my reasoning and suggestion.
Ubique.
Les
always liked the Bay Class or perhaps its replacement
https://www.navylookout.com/bmt-develop-second-generation-ellida-multi-role-and-logistic-vessel-concept/
Further to my comment of 8 Nov 23, the link to CNR 18.2 is now available.
Here it is for those who do not have a subscription to CNR but who wish to see the discussion about an LPA.
https://navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol18_2.pdf
Ubique.
Les