# Hospital ship for Canada



## JLB50

An interesting idea I just read in Casr.ca about possibly converting a sister ship to the interim AOR (Project Resolve) into a hospital/disaster relief ship.

http://www.casr.ca/mp-daly-disaster-aid-hospital-ship.htm

What do you think?

 (Hopefully, I've linked properly to the CASR website...I'm not as proficient at this as many of you are...otherwise, sorry).


----------



## George Wallace

Commendable suggestion.  Only problem with it is that then we would have to have Doctors and Nurses to man it.  We don't even have enough Doctors in the CAF a the moment to take care of the troops, let alone have dedicated Doctors positioned on a Hospital Ship.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

NO! No friggin way !!!!!

If Canadians want an hospital ship to deploy for disaster relief, MAN IT WITH MERCHANT SEAMEN AND CIVILIAN HEALTH TRADES PERSONNEL.

I really don't care if Canadian want the military more involved in peacekeeping, disaster relief and humanitarian aid: That is NOT the job of the military.

Don't people understand that doing such work with the military means you are doing it at THREE TIMES THE COST of doing it with civilian agencies ?

/RANT OFF


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> NO! No friggin way !!!!!


Correct..... but don't you see what a godsend this could be for an anti-military government and it's kumbaya constituents?

It cannot help but take up an inordinate amount of the 'war-fighting' defence budget and hard-sea PYs.  The Navy would have no choice but to cut back on it's real military role (because Admirals no longer resign to make a political statement).  The government then gets a knock-on benefit because there are less combatant options to offer to the international community when the call comes to contribute to the next inevitable coalition.  Win-win.  Hugs and lattes all around.

Personally, I think a hospital ship is a poor idea for multiple reasons.  As mentioned in the thread on the Defence Policy Review though, the government clearly doesn't like defence spending or interventions in any form other than a disarmed (mythical) blue beret role.  As such, I can see the good idea faeries being _all over_  this one.  

      :not-again:


----------



## Blackadder1916

It seems like its been quite some time since someone referenced CASR on these means, thinking it to provide a well thought out analysis of a military procurement issue.  Well, live and learn.

While my experience with "planning for a Canadian hospital ship" is admittedly quite long ago (late 1980s), if such did come to fruition, the manning would likely be along the same lines as the American hospital ships - _Comfort_ and _Mercy_ (USNSs not USSs) - civilian mariner crewed and medically manned (with the exception of a miniscule caretaker staff) only during operations and major exercises.  To be honest, back in the 1980s when this was proposed within the SurgGen branch, I don't think it went very far outside the medical world (reaction would probably have been similar to OGBD's) and the major proponent of the idea (my director at the time) was not viewed very kindly.  I do recall having to produce a service paper following a visit to D.C. to meet with BUMED pers who later took me on a very detailed tour of _Comfort_ which at the time was homeported in Baltimore.

I'll second OGBD, though not as loudly.  There are better ways to spend "military" money.  Though you probably won't find it written anywhere (because no one, especially a politician, would want a paper trail of such a realistic viewpoint made public) probably the sole military organization that should be focused on "humanitarian" operations is DART; it is relatively cheap and not very manpower intensive and projects a good public image for the government when it can say that it is considering sending it somewhere - makes the government look good without having to actually do a lot.


----------



## medicineman

If they want to do something like that, they might as well just stay with an expanded role 1 CFH - faster to deploy, equipment is reasonably available, just mesh the people and fire them out the door.  Now that the C-17's are actually available, it can be projected faster than a ginormous ship.  Plus, they won't need to try and deploy a butt load of helicopters to shuttle the casualties back and forth, not to mention escort ships.  Agreed though, if they were to go with something mentally challenged like that, crew it with a mixed bag, not solely military.

:2c:

MM


----------



## JLB50

I suppose that if we had a much larger navy, then it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea.  

But if Project Resolve were to have a sister ship, then why not another AOR (either leased or owned by the RCN)?  And, most likely, the hospital ship would be docked for months or even years before a disaster came along requiring its usage.  Talk about wasting taxpayer's money.

On the other hand, an LHD or similar type ship, when not serving in a purely military capacity, could serve many of the same functions as the proposed hospital ship. Earlier, when I said the proposal was "interesting", I didn't mean to imply that I was in favour of it.  However, it did catch my interest. Cheers.


----------



## CBH99

Could hospital facilities not be installed aboard one of the upcoming AOR ships, whether it is the Berlin class or the interm AOR?

I don't know if the hospital ships in USN service are all that busy - although I could be wrong?  If they aren't in extremely high demand, then chances are having a hospital ship in Canadian Navy service would be a rather redundant capability that would only marginally add to what the USNS can provide - and at a cost in terms of dollars & manpower that we simply cannot afford.


----------



## JLB50

If I recall correctly, the interim oiler (Project Resolve) was supposed to have some hospital facilities but have no idea as to the number of beds or types of supportive medical equipment. Not sure about the Berlin class ships.  

The Mistral carriers are described as having a 69 bed hospital, two operating theatres, dental, etc., the equivalent facilities of a city of 20,000.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Hospital ships of the US Navy are for the purpose of large scale opposed Marines landings where heavy casualties (exceeding greatly the Hospital facilities of the Amphibious force ships) are expected. Period. Sole reason for existence. They go back to the Pacific Island fighting of WWII.

For us in Canada, first of all, the AOR's do have surgical theatre and dental surgery theatre, accompanied by a large Sick Bay with a reasonable number of critical care beds. That's all you really need to support the Navy's needs.

If you want large ships with more: Get amphibs, like the Mistral's or the Canberra's. They have a small hospital as part of their make up and if need be, some of the nearby mess decks for troop transport can be turned into extra hospital beds, increasing the capacity for medical aid by that much. However, the rest of the time (the 15 years between two weeks stints as large capacity hospitals  :nod they can fulfill all sorts of various task related to the role of  a military: war or training of war, not to mention they would do a lot more for affirming our sovereignty in peace time.


----------



## Edward Campbell

My _guess_ is that the folks at _Davie_, like me, believe that the outcome of the Defence Review is already written and the "team" is there to organize submissions around it (the foregone conclusion), in a supportive manner.

Organization like _Mercy Ships_ and _Project HOPE_ (which no longer operates a ship) do good work but there is room for more.

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





_I'm guessing_ that _Davie_ will propose a _Francophone_ or bilingual ship ~ my _sense_ (uninformed, except by one friend who worked for them some years ago) is that _Africa Mercy_ is run by Americans and works, mainly in English ~ owned and operated by _Davie_ under a very lucrative, long term lease to _Foreign Affairs_. (My other _guess_ is that Foreign Affairs would not want to share any credit for this sort of thing with DND.)

_Personally_, I _think_ it fits well with what I _sense_ as the "Trudeau vision" and it _could_* be operated in a way that enhances Canada's influence in Africa: a region which is growing in economic importance, although I doubt _Foreign Affairs_ sees it in such crass, self interested terms.

____
* But it's the government, after all, and a Canadian government at that, so look to it to be operated in a way that backfires and brings us ridicule and scorn ~ think health care in Ontario.


----------



## chrisf

I don't get why they have such a problem with an "orphan class"

Ship maintenance is a pretty clear thing, maintenance time lines, required spares, etc, are all pretty well defined, doesn't matter if you've got one boat or ten.

Beyond that, what purpose would it even serve? We have no marines.

If it's just something to wave the flag and feel good about in the crappies parts of the earth, then why dump it on the military? 

Slap a coast guard flag on it or fund an NGO to do it. It'll cost a fraction of the price and far easier to get rid of once it's no longer the flavour of the day.

For that matter, is it even the flavour of the day? Has anyone other than CASR even suggested it?


----------



## Cloud Cover

The think the  standby costs of a Hospital ship like this would be quite significant. To JM's point, that may be quite advantageous for ulterior political motives.

Aside from funding issue, sourcing enough experienced medical personnel who would be willing to serve (confined) on the vessel would be a challenge for our recruiters and PSO's. Surely a lot of extra incentive would need to be paid.
The ship would need a security detachment (a PL of MP? Infantry?), air crew, specialized helicopters, an armed escort, air cover etc. The last 4 may be sourced by Allies if we can find some that are stupid enough to play along.

A more useful peacekeeping/peace support ship would be 2 or 3 very large ships with ramps and mexe floats, 4-5 medium Helo's, the ships cargo spaces loaded to capacity with engineering stores and thousands of lane meters for heavy equipment that can be used to open ports, roadways, clear debris, build proper refugee camps (with medical facilities), temporarily repair infrastructure (Water lines, telecommunications, power, runways etc), and also supply the ground troops to guard, defend and police those operations.  Because the vessel would not be a "Hospital Ship", it could be fitted (or "fitted for") PDMS, RAM, CIWS and the like.      These ships could be in the 700-800 foot (or larger)  length, 40-50,000 tons. 

A very small standing Naval crew for port standby and basic navigation, a few more personnel for combat systems, and when deployed the enhanced operational crew drawn from rest of the CAF primarily from the land forces and the RCAF. The standby costs, once loaded with stores except the heavy equipment would be "lower", but certainly not minimal, but given the amount of opportunity for a ship like this to be utilized, I would expect for very little standby time other than required to reload stores, return -exchange equipment etc.  

This would clearly not be an "assault ship", an LHD or LPD or anything like that. But it would give the RCN and the CAF an ability to land (in a permissive environment) a significant combat and construction engineering force (if we had one) into either a disaster zone or property recently fought over by others.  Looking forward 20 years, the new custom of "we don't do the actual fightin'" on the ground as this will be done by others", (same with air cover etc.), will be well entrenched.  One or two of the half dozen CSC's that will actually get built might be around as escort, if available.

It would probably also stretch the RCN over the breaking point, but that's another discussion and an outcome that nobody politically really cares about.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Don't get me wrong ERC. If the Government of Canada wants to provide health services to less developed countries through the use of floating "mercy" hospitals, I have no problem so long as it's done by civilians, under the aegis of Foreign (I positively hate calling it "Global") Affairs and is paid from the foreign aid budget - not the military.

I have to say, that would be a new development in world affairs. The two organizations you refer to (Project Hope and MercyShips Organization) are religiously funded organizations that are NGO. I am not aware of any government run similar organization that provide such service, and for good reasons: For a government to go and operate in another country is much more complex to organize than a NGO. You need permission from the other state government, inter-government coordination, consideration for the existence or not of disputes between government, influence of ex-colonial status or not, or interference from other foreign government for their own purpose, etc. etc. You make the "mercy" ship military and you just doubled the complexity of making arrangements. (If you think that providing needed health care to its citizens takes priority over maintenance of at least the appearance of legitimately governing the country by overtly "lording-it" over the rich Western democracy government offering aid for the "presidents for life" of those "democracies", you are deluding yourself.)

Actually, NSO, there is no problem with an "orphan" class if, and only if, the contribution of the class is of such value to the fleet as to justify the extra cost. A good example was the AOR's before they were retired (and same when we get the two Berlin's), which were the last two steamships in the fleet. So you had to keep a full set of "everything steam" on each coast. 

Orphan class costs a lot more per ship to maintain. Think set of plans. One per class to keep up to date. Same cost for an orphan as a full class, but per ship, the plans of the large class get divided by the number in the class. Same for stocks of IOR items that would otherwise restrict a ship alongside. Example: anchor. Sounds benign, but you are not allowed to sail without your full complement of anchors. Sure, you very, very  seldom need an anchor replaced, but when you do, it is extremely important to be able to replace immediately. So, emergency stocks are kept in store as long as a class of ships is in service. However, that means that for an orphan class, you may keep one in stock for the individual ship, while for a full class of, say, seven ships on one coast, you will only keep two in stock. 

Multiply that by all similar type of items and keeping an orphan becomes much more expansive than full class. So, again, it matters then that the force multiplication such orphan ship provides you for your operation makes it worthwhile. An Hospital ship is definitely NOT in that category.

And W601, I'll reiterate what I said just above here: We must keep in mind that there is a name for taking military forces (of any size or description) into another country without that country's government permission: It's called an invasion and it is an act of war. Just because we happen to be Canadians and have good intentions will not change that. So the question becomes: In the next, say 35 years, how often do we expect to have major disasters occurring in foreign countries or localized wars lead to cease-fires but lengthy peace negotiations requiring peacekeeping, for which the foreign government will ask for or accept the offers of Canadian military assistance? Then is such a number high enough to warrant the expenditure of funds, or is there a cheaper way to provide the same assistance? Canadians wanting the CF to do more disaster relief and peacekeeping is irrelevant without the "receiving" nation giving permission.

My gut feeling is that it is a very small number, bordering on zero.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So, emergency stocks are kept in store as long as a class of ships is in service.



This being Canada, we still have spares for the St Laurent class in storage...


----------



## Journeyman

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> For that matter, is it even the flavour of the day? Has anyone other than CASR even suggested it?


It's not even a CASR suggestion, but rather one of their 'contributors.'  Looking at his "expertise," I'd be hesitant to give a lot of credence to his suggestion; as noted, in less than one page of responses here, people with actual experience in political, naval, technical, etc  issues have pretty much dismissed the idea.

I'd suggest that claiming strategic expertise requires more than "CD" after your name (even with additional Commissionaires G4S' security guard experience).*  


* Yes, I Googled his Linkedin profile


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This being Canada, we still have spares for the St Laurent class in storage...



But surely, that's in case one of the St-laurent artificial reef starts to drag on the ocean floor and needs extra anchors ...  ;D


----------



## dapaterson

As I heard it, we still have props in the warehouse...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Wow! Don't  storesmen know the value of brass on the secondary market? It's not like anyone will come looking for one, just sayin'  ...   :temptation:


----------



## dapaterson

Comd RCN might want one as a lawn ornament...


----------



## Kirkhill

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> Beyond that, what purpose would it even serve? We have no marines.
> 
> If it's just something to wave the flag and feel good about in the crappies parts of the earth, *then why dump it on the military*?



I will not argue the requirement for a large floating military hospital.  As noted the military isn't big enough to need it.

But.

I continually hear concerns from the fighting forces that they can't get they stuff they need where and when they need it.  The logistics piece of the puzzle.  And yet nobody ever seems to want to spend the money on the cargo lift.

This type of ship, could just as easily be a variant of a JSS/LPD like HMS Argus.  You could get the planning for the LPD done by commissioning the Hospital Ship variant out of the gate first.

And I am not of the opinion that air lifting 1CFH is an equivalent solution, as the C17s need a secure strip to land on and then the strip needs a security force to keep it secure.  And helicopters are going to be in demand if the situation is such that a large hospital is required to manage a large number of casualties.

Your current army may not need a large logistics capability but it comes in very handy very fast.  And when you aren't using it then it can be quite useful in domestic emergencies and in making friends overseas.

I daresay that there have been numerous occasions when civil authorities would have much preferred to see a battalion of truck drivers and their vehicles show up than a battalion of infanteers.  And DFAIT would no doubt have much preferred to have an LPD/H with a good sized hospital facility in containers on board to offer to New Orleans or Haiti.

It is argued that SAR, as conducted by the CAF, is not a military function and yet I hear that you don't want to get rid of the function because you fear losing the budget. But the budget isn't serving any useful military function.  So you have already "lost" that money.  Except that it also bought 15 helicopters that could be used for other military functions if repainted and you have a corps of very proficient personnel that have a unique set of skills.

The more I see of the discussions the more I think that the Logistics Branch should be its own service with its own fleet of aircraft, ships and trucks.  Because everyone in the fighting forces seems to want to spend money on guns even if it means there is no money to deliver bullets to the guns.

And strangely enough those militarized civilian functions that you need to be able to spool up rapidly are the very areas where a part-time force of civilians could come in handy.

/rant off.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> military[/u] forces (of any size or description) into another country without that country's government permission: It's called an invasion and it is an act of war. Just because we happen to be Canadians and have good intentions will not change that. So the question becomes: In the next, say 35 years, how often do we expect to have major disasters occurring in foreign countries or localized wars lead to cease-fires but lengthy peace negotiations requiring peacekeeping, for which the foreign government will ask for or accept the offers of Canadian military assistance? Then is such a number high enough to warrant the expenditure of funds, or is there a cheaper way to provide the same assistance? Canadians wanting the CF to do more disaster relief and peacekeeping is irrelevant without the "receiving" nation giving permission.
> 
> My gut feeling is that it is a very small number, bordering on zero.



No shit. Thanks for giving me an education. NO WHERE in my post did I suggest an invasion or entering the jurisdiction without the invitation of a foreign state. In fact, I specifically made it clear that others will do the fighting/invading or whatever happens in between. Obviously there would have to be UN mandates and all the months long prerequisites of international law. Just like Haiti, Lebanon etc. [sarcasm]...   

Of course there's a cheaper way to assist - send cash, lawyers, and government/governance experts. Even factoring in a 100 percent over expenditure for graft, corruption, inefficiency and incompetence, it would still be cheaper than having a Navy or military which successive governments in power have failed to understand or support.      

And they may as well just get on with disbanding and removing any part of the armed forces that could be deployed (which would be most of it).   I don't really care about the good intentions of Canadians either, those intentions shift with the wind and are not reliable enough for planning. In any event, if they ever have to choose between a social assistance benefit or (a) the armed forces or (b) giving up some remote northern islands and resources or (c) embracing the idea of responsibility to protect and similar theories  ...well, we all know the answer to that. 

On the other hand, the horizon for the armed forces is already pretty grey with rainbow smoke and a scattered mist of unicorn feces.   The people up top better come up with something that will be seen as useful to foreign policy which will also make the government look good to the electorate. It does not matter if the option is useless to actual need for national defence, or to any future conflict or PSO. It seems trite to say, but Parliament long ago abandoned it's duty to act responsibly for national defence (if they ever did), and so this is left to the ideological whims and the issues that influence the government of today, and not the government(s) we will have for the next 35 years (although it may just be the same party ....).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I continually hear concerns from the fighting forces that they can't get they stuff they need where and when they need it.  The logistics piece of the puzzle.  And yet nobody ever seems to want to spend the money on the cargo lift.
> 
> This type of ship, could just as easily be a variant of a JSS/LPD like HMS Argus.  You could get the planning for the LPD done by commissioning the Hospital Ship variant out of the gate first.



I believe you are mixing apples and oranges here, Chris.

First of all, HMS ARGUS is neither a JSS nor a LPD. She is a converted container ship, part of the fleet auxiliaries, whose original purpose is (was?) aviation training. She happens to have a good shipboard hospital for up to seventy people in order to support British forces engaged in combat oversea. This is hardly an hospital ship, even though this mission has now become it's primary focus.

Secondly, the LPD's and JSS' you talk about don't have "variants", one of which is "hospital ship". They carry a hospital as part of their standard fitted facilities. However, for the JSS (the only known one, HNLMS Karel Doorman) this is a 20 beds facility; for two of the most likely candidates for LPD/H, the Mistral or Canberra classes, the hospital facilities are for about seventy beds. So again here, we are not talking "hospital ships".

And a true hospital ship does not give you sealift capability for cargo. 

There is no denying (and no one in the Navy has denied) that afloat logistics is a valid naval mission and that true JSS or LPD/H would be good additions to the fleet. However, we are dealing. from naval point of view, with very limited financial resources and almost even more limited manning capability. Choices are then required and maintenance of general purpose fighting forces takes first priority - that's all. And I don't know who would complain about having such ship as JSS or LPD/H, just not a single task dedicated hospital ship.

As for the usefulness of an LPD with medical facilities in containers loaded on board, what you are describing is CFH1 embarked on an LPD. Just get the LPD and you're there - but you then also get the usefulness of an LPD.

Also, airlifting CFH1 is equivalent. I'll say it again (its not sinking in some people) you CAN'T just drop in another country with your military (or other government service) uninvited. If you are invited, then the government of that state will provide you with a secure airfield and ensure it's security. In any event, the same requirement for invitation and a secure harbour exists for deploying by sea. And if we are talking disaster relief, why would there be any "security" concern one way or the other?

Finally, turning the Logistics branch into it's own service would be a disaster. When we don't get proper support now, at least we can turn to our own logistic chain directly. If it was it's own service, it would look for its own first and in case of problems, operators would have to go up to service chiefs to resolve almost all problems. In any event, it would be dangerous for the "logistic service" ships and trucks. In the Navy and Army, we have geographical command: If it comes into our box, it belongs to us. If it doesn't, it's an enemy and we shoot it  [.


----------



## Journeyman

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Of course there's a cheaper way to assist - send cash, *lawyers*, and government/governance experts.



What a crappy thing to do;  like they don't have enough difficulties!   ;D
      :stirpot:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would purchase a Mistral class and have a kit to install a semi-hospital in it. Can't service as many people at one time, but it would be more flexible, able to bring people to itself by helicopter and landing craft. Plus it could do other non-hospital stuff as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin: The Mistral's already have a full NATO level 3 hospital in them. No need for any kit. This is a facility equivalent to those for a 25,000 people small town. If you add to that the fact that an extra 100 beds from the accommodation facilities can be assigned to that hospital, it becomes equivalent to  an hospital for a 100,000 inhabitants city - again with no need for any kit.


----------



## JLB50

Do the Juan Carlos/Caberra-class ships have medical facilities equal to or greater than the Mistrals?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Wow! Don't  storesmen know the value of brass bronze on the secondary market? It's not like anyone will come looking for one, just sayin'  ...   :temptation:



FTFY

It's true that there are still parts lurking out there.  I recently disposed of some Annapolis class TAU bits and bobs.  They are at present on a massive hunt to find all these out dated things and get rid of them.  It's a money saving move, of course.


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin: The Mistral's already have a full NATO level 3 hospital in them. No need for any kit. This is a facility equivalent to those for a 25,000 people small town. If you add to that the fact that an extra 100 beds from the accommodation facilities can be assigned to that hospital, it becomes equivalent to  an hospital for a 100,000 inhabitants city - again with no need for any kit.



A good selling point for the Mistral's; but that was a completely different topic that we saw passed over by the Government, and SMEs on Canada's Naval matters.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin: The Mistral's already have a full NATO level 3 hospital in them. No need for any kit. This is a facility equivalent to those for a 25,000 people small town. If you add to that the fact that an extra 100 beds from the accommodation facilities can be assigned to that hospital, it becomes equivalent to  an hospital for a 100,000 inhabitants city - again with no need for any kit.


Thanks I knew they had "large sickbay" but did not realize at that level.


----------



## chrisf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Orphan class costs a lot more per ship to maintain. Think set of plans. One per class to keep up to date. Same cost for an orphan as a full class, but per ship, the plans of the large class get divided by the number in the class. Same for stocks of IOR items that would otherwise restrict a ship alongside. Example: anchor. Sounds benign, but you are not allowed to sail without your full complement of anchors. Sure, you very, very  seldom need an anchor replaced, but when you do, it is extremely important to be able to replace immediately. So, emergency stocks are kept in store as long as a class of ships is in service. However, that means that for an orphan class, you may keep one in stock for the individual ship, while for a full class of, say, seven ships on one coast, you will only keep two in stock.


Comparing obsolete steam boats to a modern vessel on a lease really isn't an apt comparison.

Hopefully, if they're "doing it right", then they're making maintenance responsibility of Davies.

You can get pretty much any part for any boat you like anywhere in any civilized part of the world in 48 hours (72 for the less civilized parts, such as Africa, Russia and the Grand Banks of Newfoundland) if you're willing to throw the logistics behind it to get it there (depending on where you are you may need a few dollars for "diplomatic gifts" as well)

If you've got the leasing company handling maintenance, then you're not hamstrung by government purchasing, no one it the private world keeps spares of something as silly as an anchor, they buy it and fly it as needed, only critical and consumable spares are kept on board.


----------



## dapaterson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> FTFY
> 
> It's true that there are still parts lurking out there.  I recently disposed of some Annapolis class TAU bits and bobs.  They are at present on a massive hunt to find all these out dated things and get rid of them.  It's a money saving move, of course.



Given how much is spent on warehousing, it's something very necessary.  I recall a few years ago hearing about a massive collection of CF-5 drop tanks in a warehouse somewhere.  Holding spares for vessels or vehicles that are no longer in service makes little sense.


----------



## jollyjacktar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given how much is spent on warehousing, it's something very necessary.  I recall a few years ago hearing about a massive collection of CF-5 drop tanks in a warehouse somewhere.  Holding spares for vessels or vehicles that are no longer in service makes little sense.



And that is exactly what's driving this project.  The monies spent on warehousing obsolete items is an anchor they need to get rid of.  Money saving, as I said and sensible, as you said.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nothing wrong with warehousing and storing equipment and parts. Knowing what your storing and doing it correctly is important. Look at the FN's, we could have stored them the way the Russians did and they be good for another 60 years. Same with bridging equipment, older radio's, webbing, etc. We were able to equip our SYEP program with webbing because we had squirreled away the 51 pattern. We have to much of a "toss and get rid of stuff" mentality and then suck wind when we realized that maybe we should not have gotten rid of X so quickly. I remember the story of the weatherships, Crown assets sold them off at bargain basement prices (with full fuel tanks). then we had to go back to the buyer to purchase the meteorological gear off of them to keep the remaining equipment going and the price was steep.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with warehousing and storing equipment and parts. Knowing what your storing and doing it correctly is important. Look at the FN's, we could have stored them the way the Russians did and they be good for another 60 years. Same with bridging equipment, older radio's, webbing, etc. We were able to equip our SYEP program with webbing because we had squirreled away the 51 pattern. We have to much of a "toss and get rid of stuff" mentality and then suck wind when we realized that maybe we should not have gotten rid of X so quickly. I remember the story of the weatherships, Crown assets sold them off at bargain basement prices (with full fuel tanks). then we had to go back to the buyer to purchase the meteorological gear off of them to keep the remaining equipment going and the price was steep.



That can be done with certain items that are reusable as per the examples you gave of clothing articles; but for items that are no longer useful because the major equipment they would be used on have long disappeared from the inventories, it only takes up space and transforms your warehouse from a warehouse into a "museum for nick knacks".


----------



## jollyjacktar

All true with the parts I disposed of, they were obsolete,  honestly so and had no place in current systems. 

As for the FN I once had assigned to me, she was really clapped out when I knew her.


----------



## MedCorps

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not aware of any government run similar organization that provide such service, and for good reasons: For a government to go and operate in another country is much more complex to organize than a NGO. You need permission from the other state government, inter-government coordination, consideration for the existence or not of disputes between government, influence of ex-colonial status or not, or interference from other foreign government for their own purpose, etc. etc. You make the "mercy" ship military and you just doubled the complexity of making arrangements. (If you think that providing needed health care to its citizens takes priority over maintenance of at least the appearance of legitimately governing the country by overtly "lording-it" over the rich Western democracy government offering aid for the "presidents for life" of those "democracies", you are deluding yourself.)



The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy has started doing this with some vigor using their new'ish Type 920 hospital ship the "Peace Ark".  It is being used for Global Medical Engagement & Diplomacy missions to further the foreign policy and influence of the Chinese government (whilst at the same time doing some good in the world). It is big... like 50 surgeries a day big!  You can find it in places close to us like say, Mexico, Barbados, Grenada, Peru, Cuba, Trinidad, Costa Rica and Jamaica as well as the Philippines, French Polynesia and Yemen. 

MC


----------



## chrisf

Colin P said:
			
		

> I remember the story of the weatherships, Crown assets sold them off at bargain basement prices (with full fuel tanks). then we had to go back to the buyer to purchase the meteorological gear off of them to keep the remaining equipment going and the price was steep.



I'm not sure if that's meant to illustrate the importance of hanging on to old junk or the ineffectualnes of government procurement?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You're quite right MedCorps. I forgot about PLAN Peace Ark, though, while it visited Jamaica, Mexico and French Polynesia, it did not perform any medicine in those specific countries (and why would they as they are well served medically speaking, particularly Polynesia which as French territory has the same level of medical service as all French over sea territory and damn near same as continental France.

However, you do confirm my point, which is that when done by a government as opposed to a NGO, it becomes a matter of diplomacy and foreign affairs, not a mere medical matter anymore, and thus subject to the vagaries of international relations.


----------



## Underway

Hospital ship for Canada articles coming out of the woodwork now.

http://espritdecorps.ca/why-doesnt-canada-have-military-hospital-ships/2016/5/10/why-doesnt-canada-have-a-military-hospital-ship?rq=hospital%20ship


----------



## Cloud Cover

somebody responded to that article quite forcefully ..


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:
			
		

> Hospital ship for Canada articles coming out of the woodwork now.
> 
> http://espritdecorps.ca/why-doesnt-canada-have-military-hospital-ships/2016/5/10/why-doesnt-canada-have-a-military-hospital-ship?rq=hospital%20ship



I was really hoping that that article had some actual explanation as to why we don't. Instead, it just trudges on about the merits of having a hospital ships, make arguments about why it should be easy to have one, and the finishes off with little more than:



> So, given the inherent value of a national asset like a hospital ship, its contribution to our ability to project soft power, its ability to contribute to Canadian international development and humanitarian response, and its affordability, why doesn’t Canada have a hospital ship?



I can think of a few reasons why Canada doesn't have one, and won't in the near future. We are having enough trouble simply getting CCG and RCN vessels built, we haven't even started talking about replacements for the subs, and you want to add one of these to the mix? 

Ok, sure, you can buy some civilian vessel and reconfigure it (Davies will probably do it for cheap, too). However, we don't have a very large military with an over abundance of physicians. We would have to seriously deplete CF Health Svcs in order to man one of these thing.

Ok, so hire some more Doctors? Well, unlike Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, or most of the other countries listed in the article, who's doctors make very little, Canadian doctors are among the 5 most highly paid physicians in the world. 

Also, politics. I firmly believe that the Government of Canada is a massively risk averse organization. The though of sending down a ship full of doctors to perform surgeries must give our politicians nightmares. What if someone were to die under anesthesia? Or worse, due to a mistake by one of the doctors? Better to just give a bunch of money to an NGO and let them absorb the liability.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Do up a PowerPoint with a fancy acronym and a picture of a Mistral painted white with a big red cross on the side and you could likely convince the Liberals and voters to buy 2 of them and they aren’t from the US either.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm with those who say that the Royal Canadian Navy/Canadian Forces has no need, none at all, for a hospital ship and it, building/leasing on for DND is just silly ...
.
.
.
.
... but Foreign Affairs (or is it Global Affairs?) ...

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





..._might_ find use for one and this government might be able to find the money for it (perhaps from the defence budget  : ).

It's too bad _Bombardier_ doesn't build ships.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's too bad _Bombardier_ doesn't build ships.



They used to! At least their Canadair division did, before they acquired it.

They built HMCS BRAS D'OR. I bet you they still have a set of plans stuffed in a corner somewhere.

Now, that would be a hospital ship that you could deploy quickly!  OK, it would be too small - perhaps a new concept : an Ambulance ship.  [


----------



## larry Strong

MedCorps said:
			
		

> The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy has started doing this with some vigor using their new'ish Type 920 hospital ship the "Peace Ark".  It is being used for Global Medical Engagement & Diplomacy missions to further the foreign policy and influence of the Chinese government (whilst at the same time doing some good in the world). It is big... like 50 surgeries a day big!  You can find it in places close to us like say, Mexico, Barbados, Grenada, Peru, Cuba, Trinidad, Costa Rica and Jamaica as well as the Philippines, French Polynesia and Yemen.
> 
> MC



And the 2 US Hospital shis are doing the same with Operation Continuing Promise.....



> ......the ship deployed for five months providing medical and surgical services to nine locations in the Caribbean and Latin America - Jamaica, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Haiti. During this mission, the ship's crew set up medical and surgical civil action program sites. These temporary medical clinics included primary care, internal medicine, obstetrics, and pediatric physicians as well as physical therapy, dental, radiology, laboratory, and pharmacy services. On board the ship general surgery, ophthalmology, oral and maxillofacial, and orthopedic surgeries were performed on pre-screened patients......



From Wiki.....


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Blackadder1916

For those that may be interested, the latest episode of "Mighty Ships" on the Discovery Channel (today locally at 1900hr MT - in about an hour) will feature the USNS Comfort as it ". . . travels from Colombia and through the Panama Canal  on a mission of mercy to the tiny Caribbean island of Dominica . . . "


----------



## Blackadder1916

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> For those that may be interested, the latest episode of "Mighty Ships" on the Discovery Channel (today locally at 1900hr MT - in about an hour) will feature the USNS Comfort as it ". . . travels from Colombia and through the Panama Canal  on a mission of mercy to the tiny Caribbean island of Dominica . . . "



If you missed it when it was on the TV schedule, it is now available for viewing on the Discovery Channel site.
http://www.discovery.ca/Video?vid=871308

Found a few documents that may help better inform those who are interested in this subject.  The first two, from 1986, provide some background on the initial conversion and concept of operation of the US Navy's current hospital ships.  They seem familiar to me and I probably brought copies of one or both back from my late-1980s visit to the COMFORT and used them as reference in the service paper I wrote for my director. (Probably also used some as background in the development of a "ship's hospital" design for the Polar 8 icebreaker - the CCG requested our input for the medical facility that they included in that unrealized project.  Strange as it sounds, back then I was the staff officer responsible for ships medical facility planning - obviously NDHQ was as screwed up then as it is now.)


T-AH Hospital Ship General Information Manual 
https://archive.org/details/TAHHospitalShipGeneralInformationManual

INTRODUCTION TO T-AH 19 HOSPITAL SHIP
https://archive.org/details/INTRODUCTIONTOTAH19HospitalShip


> This document was prepared by the Medical Liaison Team at the Supervisor
> of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, . USN, (SUPSHIP) San Diego. It is designed
> to familiarize new personnel with the general history, mission, and
> physical characteristics of the T-AH 19 Class Hospital Ship. It is not a
> statement of medical department or Navy pol icy am should not be represented
> as such. Some of its information concerns general ship operation and details
> but the primary thrust is toward the hospital functions and capabilities.



These concern possible replacement of MERCY and COMFORT.

http://www.mobilehospital.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ADA554335.pdf
Naval Surface Warfare Center NSWCCD-CISD–2011/004 August 2011   Hospital Ship Replacement
This has an interesting acknowledgement among the pers who contributed.


> The HSR design team would like to sincerely thank the following for guidance throughout the project:
> . . .
> LCdr Robert D’Eon NSWCCD 2202, Canadian Navy Liaison
> . . .



http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a614483.pdf
NSWCCD-80-2014/039 August 2014
Development of the Hospital Ship Replacement (HSR) Concept – Maximizing Capability & Affordability

And what the Chinese are doing with their hospital ship.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a552566.pdf
Red Crosses, Blue Water  Hospital Ships and China’s Expanding Naval Presence


----------

