AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Lumber]

Now that is an interesting suggestion!

Or as they say: we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume! Or in this case: by government "x": we lose money on every ship sold to another country (because of the subsidies we give our yards), but make it up on every of our ships we purchase abroad (and benefit from the subsidies their government give their shipyards).

Except that this isn't private sector purchasing. The second the public finds out that we sold our $1.5 Billion supply ships for $750 Million, they'll be in uproar. It won't matter that we managed to buy AORs from Spain for $750 Million a piece, thereby balancing it all out; they will just see us taking a $750 Million loss.

 

[Underway]

Except that this isn't private sector purchasing. The second the public finds out that we sold our $1.5 Billion supply ships for $750 Million, they'll be in uproar. It won't matter that we managed to buy AORs from Spain for $750 Million a piece, thereby balancing it all out; they will just see us taking a $750 Million loss.

Sub contract all over again...

 

[Kirkhill]

Except that this isn't private sector purchasing. The second the public finds out that we sold our $1.5 Billion supply ships for $750 Million, they'll be in uproar. It won't matter that we managed to buy AORs from Spain for $750 Million a piece, thereby balancing it all out; they will just see us taking a $750 Million loss.

Agreed Lumber.  The point is that there is no way to have a rational discussion about any of this because nobody can agree on the numbers and accountants will make the numbers mean what ever you want them to mean.

 

[Danjanou]

I was just chatting with one of the MS here. We have both served on PRO and PRE.
We were discussing the names of the replacement ships and how there is little to no naval connection with the names (There was a bit of amphibious action at Queenston Heights but that was by the Americans)

We were thinking that since PROVIDER, PROTECTEUR and PRESERVER were all gone now, why don't we recycle the names? Makes sense to me.
What do the rest of you think?

I agree the names should have some form of Naval significance. I have no problems with recycling the old names. Hey if we phrase it as a green eco friendly, pro recycling thing because it's 2016 maybe our political masters will buy it  8). If not then how about naming them after the Naval ( including FAA and RCAF) VC recipients? We have five to choose from.

HMCS William Hall (VC)
HMCS Rowland Bourke (VC)
HMCS Frederick Thornton Peters (VC)
HMCS Robert Hampton Gray (VC)
HMCS David Ernest Hornell (VC)

 

[jollyjacktar]

I agree the names should have some form of Naval significance. I have no problems with recycling the old names. Hey if we phrase it as a green eco friendly, pro recycling thing because it's 2016 maybe our political masters will buy it  8). If not then how about naming them after the Naval ( including FAA and RCAF) VC recipients? We have five to choose from.

HMCS William Hall (VC)
HMCS Rowland Bourke (VC)
HMCS Frederick Thornton Peters (VC)
HMCS Robert Hampton Gray (VC)
HMCS David Ernest Hornell (VC)

William Hall (VC) is getting one of the AOPS already.

 

[FSTO]

William Hall (VC) is getting one of the AOPS already.

I really hope that the names morph into the last name only. Using the full name is so...........Government of Canadaish (or even worse USNish).  [

 

[jollyjacktar]

I think they may, I keep hearing, "DeWolf", when name dropping is used on the AOPS.  Or it might just become "Harry" (unofficially of course).  But you're right, it sounds a mouthful and alien to my ears having a person's full name like that for our ships.

 

[Lumber]

I think they may, I keep hearing, "DeWolf", when name dropping is used on the AOPS.  Or it might just become "Harry" (unofficially of course).  But you're right, it sounds a mouthful and alien to my ears having a person's full name like that for our ships.

Harry? Sounds too much like Hairy. I'd be much more on board with unofficially calling it "Wolf".

 

[FSTO]

Harry? Sounds too much like Hairy. I'd be much more on board with unofficially calling it "Wolf".

We all ready have PCT Wolf.

Just keep it DeWolf (DWF on the flight deck!!!  ;D)

 

[Danjanou]

William Hall (VC) is getting one of the AOPS already.

True forgot about that. However if I was PM I'd give him a bigger ship. The first three names I listed would be the Berlin AORs and as long as I'm dreaming here the last two because of their aviation connection would be our BHS, preferably Mistrals or something similar. hey I can dream.

I guess if we stayed with this whole War of 1812 Battle Honours theme though we are limited.

Can't use the two Naval enjoyments and call ships HMCS Lake Erie, and HMCS Lake Champlain, bit embarrassing naming ships after battles we lost. There is of course that skirmish up on lake Huron involving the crew of HMS Nancy, RFLDR and First Nations capturing two US Frigates, but "HMCS We're a sneaky bunch" sounds too much like a name that ship contest.

Going to the land battles we are still limited. Can't see the Yanks liking us have ships named HMCS Detroit, HMCS Ogdensburg or HMCS Miami, although they might be okay with HMCS Burning Buffalo to the Ground (Again).  HMCS Fort Michilmackinac will never fit on a ball cap and HMCS Beaver Dams is just too cruel.

Can't use HMCS York, HMCS Moraviantown, HMCS Fort Wayne, HMCS Fort Harrison, HMCS Fort Meigs, HMCS Fort Stephenson, HMCS Fort George,  HMCS Newark,  HMCS Chippewa, and/or HMCS Fort Erie because we lost all those engagements. No wonder the Yanks think they won the bloody war.

That leaves the one's chosen and HMCS Stoney Creek and HMCS Lundy's Lane, but who wants to name a ship after an outlet mall.  8)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

HMCS YORK and HMCS CHIPPAWA already exist: Reserve units for Toronto and Winnipeg, respectively.

As I have suggested before, however, if you want to stick to the War of 1812, you could've used the names of HM Ships that fought in the war.  There is a whole slew available and I offered a quorum of them in the past. You may say that they were British ships, but by and large, the land battles were fought by the British also. At least, the ships had the advantage of having been built locally, on the river and great Lakes.

 

[jollyjacktar]

HMCS Shannon, then.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Just came upon this Youtube video put out by Davie on project resolve's progress. They apparently intend to do this from time to time  - smart PR :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_2_aWcd7mI

P.S.: Note the number of time they mention that they are Canada's "most experienced, highest capacity and largest shipbuilder"  [

 

[jollyjacktar]

That, was a slick video.  Very well done indeed.  They're not acting like they see themselves as the king of the hill and entitled to the lion's share as their natural due, ala Irving.  This was most definitely evident at CANSEC last week.  Polar opposites in how they came across to the public.

 

[MilEME09]

The words on time and on budget are a rarity for made in Canada, if at the end of the day they are still on time and on budget, I think Davie will see a lot more work come from the government.

 

[Kirkhill]

Good catch OGBD.

Most interested in the FEDNAV involvement in operating the vessels - including supplying the engine room, navigation and hotel staff.

Something a bit more civilian than the UK's Royal Fleet Auxiliary and moving towards the RAF's AirTanker consortium model.

Irving's recent "Cragside" proposal offers a "me-too" solution that would put a similar tonnage Floating Support Base/Transport in the water with a crew for about 60 MCAD a year for the first five years and 25 MCAD a year there after.  The Davie proposal, according to CASR, is for about 75 MCAD a year.

Sounds like a reasonable solution to a "B" fleet for the Navy.  (B fleet as the Army employs the term - a logistics fleet of unarmoured vehicles to support the F (Fighting) echelon with their A (Armoured) vehicles).

 

[Cloud Cover]

Good for Davie, I think this is going to be an interesting turn of events. As for Irving, put up some private money, start showing initiative and get moving. No reason they can't work with FFS too.

QQ's about resolve:
- what type/ class landing craft are those ( it looks like either 2 or 4 can be carried);
- is this a double hull vessel where the fuel tanks are? ( must be, but just asking)
- they are making statements about integrated tactical combat systems- what systems might that be?
- how is the RCN getting all of the necessary communications gear- have orders been placed?
- fitted for but not equipped with CIWS, good move- how many, and where would they be fitted?
- chaff and decoy systems?
- the accommodations look interesting- 2 to a room or 4?
- the hospital facilities are scaled to what level?
- how will FFS crew the ship over longer duration- this ship looks like it could be at sea for very long periods. Will there be Navy style work ups, and how the heck will that work with a mixed civvie(Union) crew and reg force sailors
- did they say 2 Chinooks? New doctrine coming?
- interesting escorts vessels in the refuelling part of the video. Those are large destroyers ( yet to be built) unless they are foreign

 

[YZT580]

Watched the video.  Gee, I thought that it was the Cons who agreed to the contract with the libs reluctantly signing on after the election.  Sure wouldn't know that from watching that little bit of politicking.  All credit to the Trudeauites.  Wouldn't have happened without them.

 

[Kirkhill]

YZT -

Don't upset the paymaster.  Like Whiskey says: It's a good thing.

 

[YZT580]

Wouldn't dream of it.  Strictly an observation.  In fact, it is a very shrewd (albeit dishonest) action on the part of Davies.  I expect more contracts will follow for the good folks in Quebec as soon as the government can figure out how to send them their way without alienating the voters of the Maritimes who are actually far more loyal than Quebec has ever been.