Author Topic: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)  (Read 797910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1975 on: April 16, 2018, 08:02:18 »
As for people saying how bad it is to have lost the Military side of AOR fleet. Look at the US Military, very few of their AORs are staffed by full Military crews, they seem to work pretty well.


So, you're a Tanker guy then too in addition to being a sage on the Griffon, are you?  How many years did you sail doing RAS work on PRE, PRO or PROVIDER?  I've got over 9 years.  I'm not an expert but l do know my swim lane reasonably well.

There won't be civilian sailors on the PRO Class.  Tell me, please do, how the knowledge that is not being covered off on Asterix will be retained?

And lastly, the US ships you speak of are excellent.  Yes they are, agreed.  But they would not go into the box in the Gulf, we were the only country to do so.  There are limitations to where the civilians will go.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,489
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1976 on: April 16, 2018, 10:03:18 »
You are quite correct, Jjt, that the American supply ships did not go into the box in the Gulf. But look at your own post: We, Canada, were the only ones to do so.

As I have said before, it is not the technical capabilities of the supply ships that make the difference - it is the institutional decisions on force employment that make the difference. We are the only ones anywhere who have elected to take AOR's into more dangerous waters. No one else has, whether their supply ships are manned fully or not by uniformed personnel.

Therefore, there is nothing preventing us from having supply ships manned partially or totally by civilians, so long as we accept to change our employment of those ships to be in line with what everybody else in the world does.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am NOT advocating such a route. I like the fact that we can do some things that no one else can (or will), because it buys Canada credits from our allies that lead to things like the fact that Canada was the only participating Nation in the Gulf War that the US military gave a Theatre command, and it was wholly because of our AOR's capabilities and employment scheme.


jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1977 on: April 16, 2018, 10:11:03 »
Good points, OGDB.  Thank you.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,940
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1978 on: April 16, 2018, 11:47:01 »
Some onboard video to be found on Federal Fleet Service Twitter feed

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1366294&binId=1.1145745&playlistPageNum=1


Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1979 on: April 16, 2018, 13:38:46 »
Notice the design differences between aft and forward RAS bridge? Is it because one of them came from Protecteur Ships and the other is brand new?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,057
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,874
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1980 on: April 16, 2018, 13:49:31 »
Notice the design differences between aft and forward RAS bridge? Is it because one of them came from Protecteur Ships and the other is brand new?

No, all the RAS gear is new.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 29,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1981 on: April 16, 2018, 14:32:13 »
I thought the JSS concept was ditched anyway and the decision was made to go with a ship limited to refueling and re-supply hence the Berlin class modified to the Queenston standards and not some new type of ship with too many expectations. 

I think somebody mentioned way back in this thread that if the government wants the RCN to perform LPD work, then build or buy an LPD. Same thing with an LHD, or a ro-ro ship or whatever other "joint" function is deemed necessary.   We are a rich country, we can afford these things if they were really and truly needed, but they aren't ..... right now, the navy has informed the government through Leadmark 20250 that it needs a new mobile gas station and ships with more firepower.   
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 14:41:51 by whiskey601 »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,940
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1982 on: April 16, 2018, 14:43:24 »
For our current tasks that is. The government could change what Canada will do at anytime.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 29,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1983 on: April 16, 2018, 14:47:23 »
yes of course, but requirements have to "bake in" at some point or the frigging things will never be built  .... if the requirement changes, then another type of ship will be needed. 

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 124
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1984 on: April 16, 2018, 16:59:23 »
yes of course, but requirements have to "bake in" at some point or the frigging things will never be built  .... if the requirement changes, then another type of ship will be needed.


I realize this is an AOR thread, but since we’re on the topic of other types of ships, I can’t help but wonder when the discussion will start on what eventually replaces the MCDVS. I understand that they have been continually and greatly updated over the past few years, but if I’m not mistaken, I was under the impression that they will be divested by the early 2030’s. To circle back to the AOR’s, it’s taken well over a decade to be where we are now, which is still likely 5 years away from seeing one in the water. Given the glacial pace of procurement here, shouldn’t there be some impetus to get the ball rolling soon? Or will it be that the RCN has to try and juggle two 4 CSC task groups, a summer’s worth of Arctic patrolling AND east coast/west coast  duties with 5-6 AOPS, 4 SSK, and 15 CSC, once the KINGSTON’s have retired? Seems likely to be stretched pretty thin.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,057
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,874
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1985 on: April 16, 2018, 17:07:22 »
I thought the JSS concept was ditched anyway and the decision was made to go with a ship limited to refueling and re-supply hence the Berlin class modified to the Queenston standards and not some new type of ship with too many expectations. 

I think somebody mentioned way back in this thread that if the government wants the RCN to perform LPD work, then build or buy an LPD. Same thing with an LHD, or a ro-ro ship or whatever other "joint" function is deemed necessary.   We are a rich country, we can afford these things if they were really and truly needed, but they aren't ..... right now, the navy has informed the government through Leadmark 20250 that it needs a new mobile gas station and ships with more firepower.

Yes they stopped calling it the JSS sometime ago. Its now called the PROTECTEUR Class.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,057
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,874
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1986 on: April 16, 2018, 17:13:06 »

I realize this is an AOR thread, but since we’re on the topic of other types of ships, I can’t help but wonder when the discussion will start on what eventually replaces the MCDVS. I understand that they have been continually and greatly updated over the past few years, but if I’m not mistaken, I was under the impression that they will be divested by the early 2030’s. To circle back to the AOR’s, it’s taken well over a decade to be where we are now, which is still likely 5 years away from seeing one in the water. Given the glacial pace of procurement here, shouldn’t there be some impetus to get the ball rolling soon? Or will it be that the RCN has to try and juggle two 4 CSC task groups, a summer’s worth of Arctic patrolling AND east coast/west coast  duties with 5-6 AOPS, 4 SSK, and 15 CSC, once the KINGSTON’s have retired? Seems likely to be stretched pretty thin.

Yes 2030's is what I have heard, no word on it they will be replaced with a dedicated mine warfare ship or not.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1987 on: April 16, 2018, 17:18:07 »
Need to check my glasses.  For a second there, l thought you typed "a dedicated mime warfare ship".

I suppose it would be rather funny looking.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 124
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1988 on: April 16, 2018, 17:20:21 »
Chief, is it possible that they can last longer if they reduce the tasks that are currently assigned to the class? For example, if they’re now transitioning back to primarily mine warfare, will that lessen the wear and tear and allow them (or at least some of them) to continue longer?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,057
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,874
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1989 on: April 16, 2018, 17:25:14 »
Chief, is it possible that they can last longer if they reduce the tasks that are currently assigned to the class? For example, if they’re now transitioning back to primarily mine warfare, will that lessen the wear and tear and allow them (or at least some of them) to continue longer?

The ships are in great shape and the only real problems is obsolescence issues on certain components and that is being dealt with. The payload change don't really cause wear and tear per se.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,489
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1990 on: April 16, 2018, 17:46:18 »
Need to check my glasses.  For a second there, l thought you typed "a dedicated mime warfare ship".

That would have to be a French design.  ;D

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 124
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1991 on: April 16, 2018, 17:54:03 »
That’s good to hear. If memory serves, some other Mine warfare vessels (Tripartite, for ex) are even older than the KINGSTON’s. That being said, though, they probably haven’t been pulling the same weight as the MCDVS. Just patrolling in the North Atlantic is likely to be harder on a ship than what some European vessels have been tasked with.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 124
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1992 on: April 16, 2018, 17:56:56 »
Need to check my glasses.  For a second there, l thought you typed "a dedicated mime warfare ship".

I suppose it would be rather funny looking.

Dangerous duty on one of those. More than one has been stuck in a patrol box that no one else can see...😄

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 208,787
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,227
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1993 on: April 16, 2018, 18:37:44 »
I remember a few years ago people jumping all over me about the Bell CH-146 Griffon and not being able to deploy it to Afghanistan. The so called experts claimed no way no how could that helicopter be used in the conditions it would be subjected to
It was used and it did a decent job. Not ideal but it was used.

It could not have functioned in the transport role.

That was why we acquired the second-hand US Army CH47Ds.

As an escort machine, it was adequate.

It cannot, however, perform that task year-round in cooler/wetter climes.

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1994 on: April 16, 2018, 21:22:07 »
Sharing a link from http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-liberals-must-change-course-on-sinking-approach-to-shipbuilding

The journalist thinks, as I am, that we shall acquire Obelix. I would add MRNSV (pic in next reply). Focus our CAD in Coast Guard to protect against future threats (China, Russia and USA itself) building a truly Polar Class 1 or two. Hold the JSS for a better opportunity to build an LHD or LPD.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 21:41:44 by alexanderpeterson »

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1995 on: April 16, 2018, 21:42:30 »
Cool ship. 6 functions in one ship...What do you think?

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1996 on: April 16, 2018, 21:47:29 »
Sharing a link from http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-liberals-must-change-course-on-sinking-approach-to-shipbuilding

The journalist thinks, as I am, that we shall acquire Obelix. I would add MRNSV (pic in next reply). Focus our CAD in Coast Guard to protect against future threats (China, Russia and USA itself) building a truly Polar Class 1 or two. Hold the JSS for a better opportunity to build an LHD or LPD.

He's not a journalist but a Conservative politician.  He also shouldn't crow so loudly as his team were less than stellar too in taking care of things.

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1997 on: April 16, 2018, 21:51:37 »
... his team were less than stellar too in taking care of things.

You are right, both sides of the aisle has mismanaged purchasing process, what leads me to think that either is an endemic or a systemic issue. What is the difference between the effective acquisition (Orca, Kingston, Frigates, etc) and now?

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1998 on: April 16, 2018, 21:58:40 »
No difference, really.  They've all been messed up to one degree or the other (CPF and MCDV) can't speak to the ORCA as they're on the wrong coast for me to have first hand knowledge.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,940
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1999 on: April 17, 2018, 10:12:28 »
From what I gathered, the Orcas were based on a well proven patrol boat design, but with a large training/bunking area added, which have severely limited their stability and their ability to steam the coast in less protected waters. They are certainly a step up from the YFP/YAGs & Gate boats for training, but very limited in the ability to conduct any other function.