# The BHS



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

Ok we know this will have manning issues and we know it will not sail as much as other ships, so I am wondering would it be practical to make the LPD a Reserve ship? I know you guys as well are having manning issues but would it be more benficial to maybe get rid of the MCDVs and have you guys man this? Thoughts?


----------



## navymich (11 Mar 2007)

Ex-D, what's the complement on the BHS again?

One thing with the MCDVs though, is that with MARS IV training, there are portions that require more then one ship sailing (ex. deck evolutions, OOW maneuvers etc).  As well, the MCDVs also have other tasks and duties including route survey and BOIV ops.


----------



## Stoker (11 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ok we know this will have manning issues and we know it will not sail as much as other ships, so I am wondering would it be practical to make the LPD a Reserve ship? I know you guys as well are having manning issues but would it be more benficial to maybe get rid of the MCDVs and have you guys man this? Thoughts?



Perhaps get rid of 6 ships, and use the manpower to man the BHS. Of course, it will have to be a mixture of regs/reserves. By getting rid of 6 ships, it will be a source of spare parts for the remaining platforms and we could use some of the hulls for strictly alongside training, perhaps docking one alongside fleetschool Quebec.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

The LPD I think that meets our needs, The Gallicia class has about 130 in her crew.

Stoker considering the Kingston class will not have a mid life upgrade, then this might be a solution.


----------



## NCRCrow (11 Mar 2007)

Saw this on CNN, what a nice ship. 

http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/new-orleans/

WOW!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Saw this on CNN, what a nice ship.
> 
> http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/new-orleans/
> 
> WOW!



Nice but too expensive for our budget conscious government and military.


----------



## NCRCrow (11 Mar 2007)

Just a thought, maybe we could have them build three extra with the infrastructure already in place.

Politics/fiscal budgets/Commonwealth games/$$.......I know the rest


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

not too mention 300+ crew


----------



## NCRCrow (11 Mar 2007)

have a mixture of reserve and reg..."Total Force Concept" 

ONGUARD!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

Still would be a little excessive from a manpower POV.


----------



## navymich (11 Mar 2007)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> have a mixture of reserve and reg..."Total Force Concept"
> 
> ONGUARD!



Not only manpower issue as Ex-D said, but how do you decide who does what and in what capacity?  You know as well as I do, that it will always be a shad vs. reg battle, who's senior, who knows what, who's the better suited for the job vice 85% suited.  MCDVs didn't have that trouble as the 2 reg force guys are trades that navres doesn't even have.  I think it would be great if both components worked side by side like that, but I honestly can't see it happening in the near future.


----------



## NCRCrow (12 Mar 2007)

It would not happen in all trades as some reg Navy trades have no NAVRES equivalent.

Look at 2 AD in Pembroke, they are a total force unit.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (12 Mar 2007)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> It would not happen in all trades as some reg Navy trades have no NAVRES equivalent.
> 
> Look at 2 AD in Pembroke, they are a total force unit.



The whole problem with this BHS is that it is a one trick pony. It is an amphibious assualt ship period. Our frigates are multi purpose....therefore we can use them for patrols, ASW, AAW picket etc. 
I think maybe the problems that FTSO was alluding to of Navy resistance has something to do with the fact that the Navy doesn't feel this is a flexible enough platform....it really is in support of the Army and doesn't address other areas of Naval operations.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Mar 2007)

Then perhaps the army should buy and crew the thing.


----------



## FSTO (12 Mar 2007)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Then perhaps the army should buy and crew the thing.


Then its dead  :blotto:


----------



## FSTO (12 Mar 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> The whole problem with this BHS is that it is a one trick pony. It is an amphibious assualt ship period. Our frigates are multi purpose....therefore we can use them for patrols, ASW, AAW picket etc.
> I think maybe the problems that FTSO was alluding to of Navy resistance has something to do with the fact that the Navy doesn't feel this is a flexible enough platform....it really is in support of the Army and doesn't address other areas of Naval operations.



Well there is always mission creep. If it is a flush deck (carrier  >) type ship then there are all sorts of things that it will do (which has been outlined several times by the big man himself).
I am sure that as soon as the Navy gets the damn thing there will be all sorts of ideas on how to employ it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Mar 2007)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Then perhaps the army should buy and crew the thing.



Then they will be bringing rocks aboard and painting them! Plus the Helo pilots will have to ask permission of the RSM to land on "his parade square"  ;D


edited to add RSM....sorry


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (12 Mar 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Then they will be bringing rocks aboard and painting them! Plus the Helo pilots will have to ask permission to land on "his parade square"  ;D



Funny...
FSTO you are right there is other stuff we could do with a ship that big...I suppose it could be a Command and Control platform too right?


----------



## hugh19 (12 Mar 2007)

Well C&C for a landing yes. But not for a fleet. Hard to have your Task group commander stuck doing a landing while his ships are off fighting somewhere else.


----------



## FSTO (12 Mar 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Funny...
> FSTO you are right there is other stuff we could do with a ship that big...I suppose it could be a Command and Control platform too right?



It would have that capability, but I still believe the main C4 ships are the 280's (and their eventual replacements). 

The real eye opener for me regarding Canada's inability to operate in the Littoral was OP TOUCAN 99-00. 
The problems: 
- While on our 10 day ramp up to move we loaded the kit that the R22 were going to use in Timor. It came all the way from a storage depot in Montreal and consisted of: the usual tents and other grunt gear plus winter gear and iltis parts (the jeeps themselves never left Canada)
- Upon arrival in Darwin we unload said gear, never to see it again until we reloaded for the trip home
- Not once being in radio contact with the Van Doos while in theatre
- Trying to launch the LCVP in calm seas and the swell smashing them against the ship side
- The LCVP being very underpowered and once beached the ramp's design was so poor that you still had to jump down about 3 ft to hit the beach
- Watching the Italians with their San Giorgio Class Amphib (with a flat deck that carried 3 Sea Kings and a couple of Hueys) launch, load and recover their landing craft effortlessly from their well deck
- Watching the French and Americans do the same thing
- Watching the Aussies mover our folks and their own troops with their own landing craft.

In fact we did a pile of watching and delivering fuel. By that I mean we rode our anchor in Dili harbor while Aussie landing craft came alongside with a couple of fuel trucks embarked to transfer fuel ashore. We could have done much more if we had the equipment that our allies had.

And if...if the Global Warming Crystal ball watchers are right and the worlds shorelines are flooded and the arctic has melted then having the capability to operate and support from the sea operations ashore will be very important.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Mar 2007)

These landing craft weren’t small steel vessels about 40’ in length with Tankage built into the hull with a with a Hydraulic driven thruster that could turn 360° run by a Duetz Diesel?
 This is what the Coast Guard used and they were useless pieces of junk.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2007)

The Rotterdam/Galicia/Bay LPDs from Royal Scheldt operate with crews of 60-180.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/galicia/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/bay_class/

60 on the Bays with no Weapons or Defensive Sensors.
~120 on the Rotterdam and Galicias with a Defensive Suite
~180 on the Galicia with an Amphib C&C Suite

As all the vessels can carry up to 700 troops, or be enlarged a larger C&C capability can be provided.

I don't really understand why 1 or 2 bare cans couldn't be provided as floating warehouses to be manned with Reservists when they need to move.  Forget about thinking of these things as combat vessels.  Rely on the escort vessels for defence beyond a limited point defence capability.

Let's just see about getting places first, and perhaps operating in our own and other benign environments before we consider joining the USMC storming beaches.

As to the issue of one trick ponies, perhaps the Danes can show us a thing or two there with their 6000 ton Absalon Class Command and Support Ships
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Absalon_Class(2004).htm

and the derivative Patrol Ships.
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/0622_PatrolShips.htm

They are essentially Frigates with a troop carrying capacity of 69 and a pair of 40 knot LCVPs as well as a RoRo deck (I don't know if it has a floodable well).  

They are well armed (equivalent to the CPFs and the DDHs).

Just for grins the Danes also have these new 1700 ton Arctic Patrol Vessels you are likely to meet up around Hans Island.
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/1120_NewOffShorePat.htm

The Air Force got behind the idea of moving guys in green around the world.   What will it take to ease the mind of those that IHS is talking to that seem to have a problem with "launching soldiers".  Does it help if they think of soldiers as "smart missiles in green"? ;D  And no wisecracks about the intelligence levels. >


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Mar 2007)

I took a tour of the Absalon when she was here last year....very nice but I think she's a little small for what we want.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2007)

Just to clarify - I wasn't thinking about the Absalon as a BHS vessel.  More as a vessel capable of taking up some of those littoral tasks where the Army just needs to put ashore a few dozen bodies - such as along our coasts.  Perhaps along some others as well.  Or perhaps to act as a mother vessel along with some smaller LCS type vessels.

Expeditionary forces come in all shapes and sizes.


----------



## HalfmyLife (17 Mar 2007)

Not one person here has mentioned, Maintenance!!!. Can you get the reserves to fix those bad boys at sea, do they fix the MCDV at sea, do they have the training to fix what they have what would make anyone think that without the ability to maintain/fix the BHS, how are you going to land troops. Now don't get me wrong, I like the idea of landing 500+ plus troops ashore, it would be a good compliment to the JSS (which would have the army's truck/avgp's (2500 lane meters). remember the JSS will also be a floating HQ for joint command. Each of these ship will complement on another and the fleet due to the multi-role capability built into the JSS. I.E. RAS Services for the task group afloat/Joint Command/Supply etc. Will we still need the MCDV's, I think so. We may need to clear the area of mines. On another note, MCDV's have the same speed and better handling then there American and Australian counterpart, which were built around the same time, one common misconception is that the MCDV's are patrol ships, they were originally designed for mine-clearing and escorting thru minefields, If this post is a little choppy, I apologize, I had allot to say!


----------



## Stoker (17 Mar 2007)

HalfmyLife said:
			
		

> Not one person here has mentioned, Maintenance!!!. Can you get the reserves to fix those bad boys at sea, do they fix the MCDV at sea, do they have the training to fix what they have what would make anyone think that without the ability to maintain/fix the BHS, how are you going to land troops. Now don't get me wrong, I like the idea of landing 500+ plus troops ashore, it would be a good compliment to the JSS (which would have the army's truck/avgp's (2500 lane meters). remember the JSS will also be a floating HQ for joint command. Each of these ship will complement on another and the fleet due to the multi-role capability built into the JSS. I.E. RAS Services for the task group afloat/Joint Command/Supply etc. Will we still need the MCDV's, I think so. We may need to clear the area of mines. On another note, MCDV's have the same speed and better handling then there American and Australian counterpart, which were built around the same time, one common misconception is that the MCDV's are patrol ships, they were originally designed for mine-clearing and escorting thru minefields, If this post is a little choppy, I apologize, I had allot to say!



Have you ever been to sea on a MCDV? We conduct first line maintenance like any other ship in the fleet. If something breaks we fix it if we have the parts. The problem is not the training but the fact we have no room for storage of parts and no proper facilities to fabricate/repair systems. Believe it or not we have some pretty intelligent people on the MCDV's. The JSS will probally be diesel electric just like the MCDV's and we do have considerable experience there. I have no doubt that we could effectively run these ships with the same training that any regular force crew would receive. Now will we be crew on the JSS?, most likely no, but that's because we are mandated to crew the MCDV's and we do our jobs well.


----------

