The ability to carry 4 x Merlin in the main deck hanger is up there with Fort (II) class, and as noted, with the large flight deck one of these vessels could replace Argus as deck landing training ship and even as ‘primary casualty receiving ship”. With Marine and Naval parties and the two rear lifeboats (or LCVP’s ?) replaced by fast CB90′s they would be ideal for anti-drug patrol ops in the Caribbean, especially in hurricane season, when they could use much of the cargo capacity for ‘emergency relief’ stores.

I want that one. Four of them…..

The DiD daily link (see Admin post below) also says: EUR 25 million for an enlarged design.

@ Jed. I meant folded rotors. 6 Chinooks or 6 NH-90′s with folded rotors in the hangar or 2 of either either type with rotors unfolded.
Source for this for the Chinooks is the Q&A with the Dutch Parliament. It’s in the answer to questions 24 & 25 (in Dutch).
http://www.defensie.nl/_system/handlers/generaldownloadHandler.ashx?filename=/media/Brief%20stasDef%20op%20commissieverzoek%20%20-%20antwoorden%20vragen%20over%20project%20joint%20logistiek%20ondersteuningsschip%20(JSS)%5B1%5D_tcm46-140567.pdf

So, the Aussie requirement was in a print article in the last edition of Warships IFR – I have to admit I have been too busy to search online for any references, but it refers to a requirement to replace the oldest of their two AOR’s.

Ref the helo carrying capacity of JSS – there is no such thing as a ‘folded’ Chinook, in the picture in the official letter to Parliament referenced by GvG the Chinook in the hanger is completely sans rotors, which is what I would expect for a voyage delivering it to an operational theatre. Get it on deck, re-attach all the whirly bits and off it flies to service the Dutch Army.

Of course we can also conjecture that a NH90 “folded” is meant to mean tail folded as well as rotors.

Anyway, Admin and GvG thanks for all the extra links :-)

The ships tonnage seems to have stayed the same at 28,000t in just about everything I’ve read so if it’s grown 3,300t then people need to update their information. If and when you find the details for the updated specifications please post away as it helps for the mental naval scheming. Any idea if the fuel capacity details are accurate, I would imagine even with 3,300t of added weight fuel capacity would only have changed a maximum of 2000m3 upwards.

Oh! and GvG nice to see you over at Information Dissemination I’m a long time lurker over there.

Because of what you wrote I understood where the information came from. I pointed out that the ship has grown 3,300t since the June 2006 Marineblad.

Check out the picture on the last page of the official letter to Parliament: http://www.defensie.nl/_system/handlers/generaldownloadHandler.ashx?filename=/media/Brief%20stasDef%20-%20joint%20logistiek%20ondersteuningsschip%2C%20resultaten%20gecombineerde%20voorstudie-%20studie%20en%20verwervingsvoorbereidingsfase%5B1%5D_tcm46-138778.pdf

http://www.kvmo.nl/pdf/marineblad_jun06_volledig.pdf

Information for the article came from various sources, including

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Dutch-Order-Multi-Purpose-Support-Ship-06113/

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:e8664ce8-c638-4964-a960-5d8acf53c61f

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/01/09/a-comparison-between-canada-s-joint-support-ship-and-the-new-dutch-jss-soon-to-be-built.aspx

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news73194.html

http://www.damennaval.com/nl/news.htm?item=11

http://www.marineforum.de/forum/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=139&t=7524

The bit I read said 6 Merlins (folded) or 2 Chinook (unfolded)

No way that it can carry 6 Merlins with unfolded rotors in the hangar, since it can only carry 2 NH-90 with unfolded rotors (or 2 Chinooks).

The Canadians are looking at 3 JSS’. They found they couldn’t afford 3 with their CAN $ 2.9billion budget (of which 2.1 for acquisition). So they are back to the drawing board.

Any online site about the Australian requirements?

So the JSS in its current Dutch form can carry a similar fuel payload as the Rover class small tankers. That may well be enough. I was also wondering if 1 x RAS rig per side was enough, I guess the answer is yes, as long as an embarked helo is Merlin sized for ‘vertrep’ with underslung loads, which is safer than heavy jackstay transfers anyway.

The big flight deck and helo handling facilities do mean that it could do duty as the helo deck landing training ship too – I am liking this design more all the time !

So, if you think about it, we could recapitalize our fleet with almost entirely MOTS / COTS designs:
C1 based on T45
C2 based on Absalon
C3 based on existing BMT designs
MARS tankers – Aegir designs
MARS logistics / multi-role – Enforcer JSS

And there is scope to get the Canadians, Aussies and Kiwi’s involved in C2, C3 and MARS type requirements – how low risk and cooperative could we be !

Which is why it will never happen….. :-(

“I finally found some specifics for the Dutch Joint support ship; it can carry 8000m3 of F76 or Diesel fuel and 1000m3 of F44 or aviation fuel in addition it can generate 125m3 of fresh water per day.”

From what I have read the Canadians would like 2 such ships (as I mentioned in my article they even call the project the JSS !) and now it appears the Aussies are inthe market for a similiar design to. Yet another chance for a Commonwealth cooperative procurement ????

It’s half time in the Superbowl on my side of the Atlantic – go Saints !