AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[FSTO]

Arrggg, BIG COD, Argggg!!!!

 

[Halifax Tar]

Aircraft carriers used to routinely refuel their escorts, not sure if that is ever done anymore?

CPFs can refuel each other, I am sure CVs can.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Arrggg, BIG COD, Argggg!!!!

Don't say it a third time

 

[KevinB]

Aircraft carriers used to routinely refuel their escorts, not sure if that is ever done anymore?

I believe the CVN's still bunker enough fuel to do that if needed - but in all the pictures and video's I have seen of that - flight operations have been stopped.

 

[k.numbers]

Can there ever be the case (or does an example exist today/past), of there being a hybrid helo/jss style ship? Maybe only RAS on 1 side of the ship and helo/drone space on the other side? Maybe a ship that has flight/deck space for say 6 helos, plus a 2/3 helo full maintenance facility, has full RAS on one side, ship/aviation fuel storage, as well as food/water/munitions, 8-10 Reaper/Predator drones and a dental/hospital facilities. Would this make any sense?

Like this? (Only a concept, of course)

 

[Czech_pivo]

Like this? (Only a concept, of course)

Wow!
Davie thought of this. Interesting.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Like this? (Only a concept, of course)

Actually replacing two of the AOP's with a ship like this capable of the same ice class would be highly useful.

 

[Underway]

The Mistrals for the Russians were ice strengthened. The Canadian army was just doing amphib ops with the French using a Mistral landing ship

L’exercice militaire à Sept-Îles en photos

Sept-Îles était samedi le théâtre d'un exercice militaire conjoint entre soldats canadiens et français.

ici.radio-canada.ca

The Army has flat out stated no Amphib (outside of river crossings). They've even told Pres units no Amphib exercises. Their focus is war in Europe and regenerating lost capabilities. Not creating new ones.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That didn't stop the Vandoos from playing with their cousin.

 

[KevinB]

That didn't stop the Vandoos from playing with their cousin.

The LIB’s have done exchanges for years (this even predates the LIB’s) with allied Military’s that do Amphibious Operations.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Army has flat out stated no Amphib (outside of river crossings). They've even told Pres units no Amphib exercises. Their focus is war in Europe and regenerating lost capabilities. Not creating new ones.

I still think the abilty to land forces including tracked vehicles in the Arctic is going to be a necessity in the not so distant future. Even a simple ice strengthened LST would suffice.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I still think the abilty to land forces including tracked vehicles in the Arctic is going to be a necessity in the not so distant future. Even a simple ice strengthened LST would suffice.

I think that Davie GLAM earlier upthread is a great option if ice strengthened. 3-4 of them would be useful for landing forces/equipment up North as well as spelling off JSS in the winter months.

 

[Underway]

I still think the abilty to land forces including tracked vehicles in the Arctic is going to be a necessity in the not so distant future. Even a simple ice strengthened LST would suffice.

The arctic thing for the Army, aside from patrolling is ridiculous frankly. There will never be an Army war in the Canadian arctic. The RCN and RCAF need to do arctic, the Army needs to do winter.

 

[PrairieFella]

The arctic thing for the Army, aside from patrolling is ridiculous frankly. There will never be an Army war in the Canadian arctic. The RCN and RCAF need to do arctic, the Army needs to do winter.

Any mobility in the Arctic will be covered by DAME anyways. Now there's probably a need to triple the number of Arctic tracked vehicles and include variants for logistics, ambs, recovery and maybe EW and mortars but everything can essentially be covered by the bandsvagn-type vehicle we end up procuring.

 

[lenaitch]

The Mistrals for the Russians were ice strengthened.

Were they? I recall reading that they were just modified for cold weather operations (more closed-in spaces, etc.) but don't recall anything about hull changes. Unfortunately, I can't find references anymore.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The arctic thing for the Army, aside from patrolling is ridiculous frankly. There will never be an Army war in the Canadian arctic. The RCN and RCAF need to do arctic, the Army needs to do winter.

The army thing in the North is creating presence, that will meaning landing beside any tactical vehicles, heavy equipment like bulldozers, crane and excavators to build shelters and support for any ops. Without that abilty, then the army thing is absolutely tied to ship or airfield support. A LST type vessel, can offload in a few hours or less and move off. Right now if you had to, you are likely looking at 2 AOPs tied to supporting the troops ashore.

The nice thing about a oceangoing LST, is it can spend a fair bit of time in Hot layup and also be used for a variety of other missions like Humanitarian, supporting other government departments, supporting the buildup of Northern infrastructure, etc.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Were they? I recall reading that they were just modified for cold weather operations (more closed-in spaces, etc.) but don't recall anything about hull changes. Unfortunately, I can't find references anymore.

My understanding that some hull modifications were done around the waterline and to sea chests, etc. Pulling from memory though.

 

[Maxman1]

The Army has flat out stated no Amphib (outside of river crossings). They've even told Pres units no Amphib exercises. Their focus is war in Europe and regenerating lost capabilities. Not creating new ones.

Something like the Canberra class still provide a tremendous amount of capabilities beyond just amphibious warfare, such as ASW platform, medical facilities, C2, sealift.

 

[Underway]

Something like the Canberra class still provide a tremendous amount of capabilities beyond just amphibious warfare, such as ASW platform, medical facilities, C2, sealift.

It could, but the cost vs benifit. Australia has it because it needs to move forces to the far side of the "Air/Sea Gap" and use Australian army forces to plug the choke points enemy fleets would use to transit to attack Australia. As well as deny basing for enemy airforces.

Spain has it because they believe that they may have to intervene in the near abroad (Africa mainly). Though some of their naval choices feel more like prestige and industrial than logical.

France has colonies, Italy has near abroad issues (Libya for example). UK has colonial assets far from home.

Canada has exactly what reason for an LHD. I just don't see it at all. One could easily roll in all those non-amphib capabilities into a Helicopter carrier that is more specialized for the task. But honestly just getting the escorts sorted out is a huge effort. RCD's, submarines and JSS are good lines of effort that make sense.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It could, but the cost vs benifit. Australia has it because it needs to move forces to the far side of the "Air/Sea Gap" and use Australian army forces to plug the choke points enemy fleets would use to transit to attack Australia. As well as deny basing for enemy airforces.

Spain has it because they believe that they may have to intervene in the near abroad (Africa mainly). Though some of their naval choices feel more like prestige and industrial than logical.

France has colonies, Italy has near abroad issues (Libya for example). UK has colonial assets far from home.

Canada has exactly what reason for an LHD. I just don't see it at all. One could easily roll in all those non-amphib capabilities into a Helicopter carrier that is more specialized for the task. But honestly just getting the escorts sorted out is a huge effort. RCD's, submarines and JSS are good lines of effort that make sense.

What role then does the Japanese Helo/Destroyer's play today and/or going forward, the 4 that they currently operate.

Could Canada operate something similar?