Bullseye
Ships are expensive: the supply ship contract alone is $2.9 billion, but the problem is that the cost will be no lower next year or the year after, while the need will be greater. - The Telegram (St. John's)
Kudos to the editorial writers who worded this important point so succinctly.
Update: Thanks to Fred in the comments for his pointer to a piece in Defence Industry Daily that's well worth the time to read.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 11:45 a.m.
1 Comments:
an outsider's view . . .
"Canada’s Joint Support Ships, in contrast, conform to no known ship type in their breadth of required functions, and are based on no pre-existing class. The firms competing for the design are not world leaders in similar ship classes like amphibious assault ships or LPDs. Nor does the depth of Canadian design and build experience in related efforts give cause for optimism; quite the reverse. Indeed, the JSS’ breadth of functions alone suggests a difficult project for any entity or country to undertake, and little hope of much beyond mediocrity in all functions due to the required trade-offs.
The Canadian Forces may succeed in the end, and if so we at DID would be happy to apologize. Indeed, we would be pleased to run an article here explaining why they believe they can succeed, and what steps they have taken to address their approach’s inherent risks and performance trade-offs.
For the project’s critics appear to have the high ground when they suggest that JSS is set up to become a budget-eating failure, and recommend that Canada replace the unwieldy JSS idea with a conventional oiler or two plus a few HSV rapid deployment vessels like the ones the USA is gravitating toward. Or recommend the LPD-17 San Antonio Class amphibious support ship as an alternative. Or even recommend a larger number of smaller Dutch/Spanish Rotterdam Class LPDs, plus the USA’s versatile new T-AKE supply ships."
rtwt . . . http://tinyurl.com/5647ow
Post a Comment
<< Home