AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Underway]

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

Japan has a whole bunch of islands and needs air power to protect their fleets. Also Japan isn't dumb and needs power projection to protect their supply lines, a carrier (which is what a helo destroyer really is), does that.

Canada doesn't have a need for power projection outside of domestic operations at this time. We need to fill in the gaps of our continental defence first, as if we were cut off from the world we wouldn't starve or freeze. Japan would.

 

[Underway]

Something like the  Cavour or the  Trieste would be perfect.

The  Trieste has a large well deck, and two more decks than the  Cavour. Both can be used for amphibious warfare, but that isn't the primary purpose.

Trieste is an amazingly cool ship, but it feels very Italian. A lot of style that impinges functionality.

Cavour is more my style overall. Straight forward design with some other optional uses, but not the try

 

[deepblue202]

I think the best we can do is upgrade the airport and port in Iqaluit allowing us to base a larger number of Twin Otters and Helicopters at the airport also allowing more C-130J and C-17 to land. I would also improve the forward operating bases all around the Artic.

 

[MilEME09]

I think the best we can do is upgrade the airport and port in Iqaluit allowing us to base a larger number of Twin Otters and Helicopters at the airport also allowing more C-130J and C-17 to land. I would also improve the forward operating bases all around the Artic.

Have you seen Davie's CANFLO proposal? part RORO, part LHD, can even act as a float plane carrier, might be worth a look

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think the best we can do is upgrade the airport and port in Iqaluit allowing us to base a larger number of Twin Otters and Helicopters at the airport also allowing more C-130J and C-17 to land. I would also improve the forward operating bases all around the Artic.

By doing this, would this by default 'help' the Danes in terms of the defense of Greenland'? Covering the western approaches to Greenland? Maybe the pitch could be the joint running of base there with the Danes, with us in turn jointly manly a western Greenland facility? Maybe even 'roping' in the Norwegians, Swedes, Finns in providing some warm bodies to both facliities?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Fly them in. Rely on local populations. Own the sea in the ice free time, and own the air at all times. Hell, Canada's main sovereignty in the North for years was a Post Office/ Mountie station combined at various communities.

So here is my thinking on this. If we really need them, we'll rent them, buy them or press them into service.

Scarce RCN resources would be better spent on ships that are not easily obtainable civilian side (relatively speaking).'

That being said, for any of this to happen the Army needs to ask for it. The RCN would be a service provider in this case. Until the Army asks for this capability the RCN isn't going to go out and try to get it.

The Army is facing the same issues as the Navy, but if the Government wants more sovereignty operations, they have to comply. It does need an "All of government approach". However there are large swaths of our land that does not have any hamlets or other place to ensure our presence. That's why I see the government having it's own resources to land heavy equipment and large number of personal as important as a tool to maintain the claim to the region. I see a government owned ice capable LST type vessel as the most economical way to achieve that. If it's run by the Navy, Fleet Auxiliary, CCG or another government department I don't really care. But I don't want to have to depend on commercial resources alone.
We can start practicing the concept in small scale using the AOP's and perhaps platoon sized landing parties to land, setup a camp and do recce of the area for future ops, maybe even setup supply caches, etc.

 

[Underway]

The Army is facing the same issues as the Navy, but if the Government wants more sovereignty operations, they have to comply. It does need an "All of government approach". However there are large swaths of our land that does not have any hamlets or other place to ensure our presence. That's why I see the government having it's own resources to land heavy equipment and large number of personal as important as a tool to maintain the claim to the region. I see a government owned ice capable LST type vessel as the most economical way to achieve that. If it's run by the Navy, Fleet Auxiliary, CCG or another government department I don't really care. But I don't want to have to depend on commercial resources alone.
We can start practicing the concept in small scale using the AOP's and perhaps platoon sized landing parties to land, setup a camp and do recce of the area for future ops, maybe even setup supply caches, etc.

The Gov't hasn't directed the Army to do amphib, so the Army doesn't prioritize it. Usually the way this works is the gov't directs the CAF in a mission command style. "Ensure soveriegnty in the north". The CAF then comes back and says to do this mission we require X, Y, Z. That Army has flat out stated that amphib are not a priority (16 May Army COS in Canadian Army Magazine/Journal). Rangers are a priority though. Their portion of that mission is activation and increasing the capabilities of Rangers.

 

[foresterab]

The Gov't hasn't directed the Army to do amphib, so the Army doesn't prioritize it. Usually the way this works is the gov't directs the CAF in a mission command style. "Ensure soveriegnty in the north". The CAF then comes back and says to do this mission we require X, Y, Z. That Army has flat out stated that amphib are not a priority (16 May Army COS in Canadian Army Magazine/Journal). Rangers are a priority though. Their portion of that mission is activation and increasing the capabilities of Rangers.

Again I wonder if it's not the time to look at the Rangers as not just ground forces but expand some numbers in key communities to add a limited maritime aspect. Not replace the RCN and definitely not to create a fully capable amphibious assault trade like the USMC.

Context I'm thinking is wildfire responses where we come in with a large number of ground resources, some aviation lift and some heavy equipment. And for 95% of the wildfires that's all you need. But then you get the other fires where a major waterbody is in the way like the Peace River, Athabasca River, or take your pick of lakes in Ontario. Crews can get to a staging area via existing transport easily...but on the wrong side of the barrier.

Solution - charter jet boats or larger private fishing boats to become ferries. If I can hire a boat + captain who knows the local area for the cost of flying a medium helicopter for an hour...pretty easy math on sustained operations. Plus they are not affected by the same visibility rules as private aviation can be.

So double a Ranger Patrol manpower strength in Tuktoyaktuk, Churchill, Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit, Moosonee or other communities and provide them with 3 good sized boats each as a means of doing limited, inshore only/river, patrols and transportation. Or heck...summer patrol via boat and snowmobile in winter. Make it a boat big enough for a section of troops to be carried and now you can start doing more dispersed drop offs....and I only say section due to both a) reasonable size of formed unit and b) Ukraine is showing lots of small units dispersed is the way of the future.

This is a 30' option and while I can't tell keel depth I have to imagine it's shallow enough to be effective in most of the environments I described above. https://www.raiderboats.com/boats-dealership--offshore-series

 

[Kirkhill]

It's the last leg ashore is the issue. It could be done but slowly and the crew could/will refuse to go anywhere there is any risk.

And thus the Naval Reserve. Civilians willing to serve in wartime. Even better if they bring their ships with them.

 

[Maxman1]

Trieste is an amazingly cool ship, but it feels very Italian. A lot of style that impinges functionality.

Cavour is more my style overall. Straight forward design with some other optional uses, but not the try

The Cavour seems the best bang for the buck. They both have the same overall capabilities, except Trieste has the well deck and extra space, which if we aren't going to do operations that require it, we would be better off saving that expense.

The Cavour can also embark the same number of troops and tanks as the  Mistral.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fly them in. Rely on local populations. Own the sea in the ice free time, and own the air at all times. Hell, Canada's main sovereignty in the North for years was a Post Office/ Mountie station combined at various communities.

So here is my thinking on this. If we really need them, we'll rent them, buy them or press them into service.

Scarce RCN resources would be better spent on ships that are not easily obtainable civilian side (relatively speaking).'

That being said, for any of this to happen the Army needs to ask for it. The RCN would be a service provider in this case. Until the Army asks for this capability the RCN isn't going to go out and try to get it.

Perhaps the issue can be dealt with through Transport Canada establishing Arctic Standards for vessels and then subsidising those "military" capabilities which are surplus to commercial requirements. The same for the air fleet.

Then it becomes a matter of finding willing civilian mariners that will volunteer to operate under military command as Reservists.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the Rangers, subsidize commercial carriers to buy C130s to carry outsize freight to rough strips.

Given the cost of ice roads and seasonality issues fly-in costs could be manageable.

After all roads all over the world are built with military requirements in mind, even if it means increased costs absorbed by the taxpayer and the government. The same thing is true for ports and ferries.

It is going to cost us 40,000,000 people to manage this massive chunk of real estate that we are claiming and denying to the rest of the world.

The only people greedier than us are our first nations.

 

[dapaterson]

Trieste is an amazingly cool ship, but it feels very Italian. A lot of style that impinges functionality.

Instead of tanks for AVPOL, they have tanks for red wine?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

. That Army has flat out stated that amphib are not a priority (16 May Army COS in Canadian Army Magazine/Journal). Rangers are a priority though. Their portion of that mission is activation and increasing the capabilities of Rangers.

Then they go and do one with the French.... Not berating them, it's a good experience all round.

 

[MilEME09]

And thus the Naval Reserve. Civilians willing to serve in wartime. Even better if they bring their ships with them.

Imo RORO is a great capability for the NAVRES, ships that don't need the sail all the time and take very few skill sets to maintain

 

[Kirkhill]

Imo RORO is a great capability for the NAVRES, ships that don't need the sail all the time and take very few skill sets to maintain

But I would prefer that the ships were in service rather than rotting unused against the wharf.

That is the advantage of the Point Class RoRo system

Point-class sealift ship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of the six ships, MV Longstone and Beachy Head were on charter to the civilian company Transfennica operating a RoRo cargo ferry service in the Baltic Sea, connecting Hanko in Finland and Lübeck in Germany. Most recently they have been operating on the Immingham to Cuxhaven route for DFDS. Other ships have also been involved in commercial activity with other companies and other militaries. All ships are available to the MoD at very short notice if required. The first four ships have been kept almost constantly busy on MoD duties since the build-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, but MV Longstone and Beachy Head have seen little MoD service and were sold in 2013 as a result of budget cuts.

Beachy Head now serves with the Republic of Singapore Navy as MV Mentor and is used for both training and sealift.

Danish Defence to use DFDS ferries to transport military gear

DFDS has a new agreement with Danish Defence, for providing freight ferry services for transport of military equipment.

www.naval-technology.com

The Danish Defence has secured a contract with ferry operator DFDS for the provision of eight roll-on/roll-off (RoRo) freight ferries to transport its military gear.

The agreement builds upon an existing contract and is expected to commence in 2026, with the potential to span six years.

This collaboration is set to bolster military readiness and effectiveness amid heightened global security concerns.

As per the terms of the agreement, the Danish Defence will have the ability to charter these vessels on demand throughout the duration of their requirement.

The military equipment transported by these vessels will support Danish military operations, exercises, disaster response initiatives, and regular transportation tasks.

The agreement is a collaboration with the Joint Movement and Transportation Organization (JMTO) and the ARK Project (ARK), superseding the current contract established in 2020.

JMTO is responsible for strategic transport within the Danish Defence, while ARK facilitates access to strategic sea transport in cooperation between Denmark and Germany.

According to DFDS, the six already designated RoRo freight ferries and two vessels pending identification will be selected based on the Danish Defence’s operational needs at the time.

These vessels are equipped with capabilities that cater to operational agility, the transport of hazardous materials, and the accommodation of weighty vehicles.

The Danish Defence has maintained a longstanding partnership with DFDS, which has been actively involved with the ARK project from its inception in 2003.

The collaboration has seen DFDS ships play a significant role in various deployment operations serving Denmark, Germany, and additional Nato member nations.

DFDS CEO Torben Carlsen said: “We are honoured to have been selected for this critical assignment, and I am proud that we will continue our longstanding cooperation with The Danish Defence and the ARK project.

“It shows the value of strong public-private partnerships that can foster resilience amid growing geopolitical tensions and rising economic uncertainty, and we look forward to contributing with our knowledge about transport and logistics.”

In January 2025, Denmark announced plans to invest approximately Dkr14bn ($1.96bn) in bolstering its military capabilities in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions, in line with the 2024-2033 Danish Defence Agreement, which received backing from political parties including the governments of Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

5 million people spending 2 Bn dollars on the Arctic
40 million Canadians. 16 Bn dollars?

 

[GR66]

Again I wonder if it's not the time to look at the Rangers as not just ground forces but expand some numbers in key communities to add a limited maritime aspect. Not replace the RCN and definitely not to create a fully capable amphibious assault trade like the USMC.

Context I'm thinking is wildfire responses where we come in with a large number of ground resources, some aviation lift and some heavy equipment. And for 95% of the wildfires that's all you need. But then you get the other fires where a major waterbody is in the way like the Peace River, Athabasca River, or take your pick of lakes in Ontario. Crews can get to a staging area via existing transport easily...but on the wrong side of the barrier.

Solution - charter jet boats or larger private fishing boats to become ferries. If I can hire a boat + captain who knows the local area for the cost of flying a medium helicopter for an hour...pretty easy math on sustained operations. Plus they are not affected by the same visibility rules as private aviation can be.

So double a Ranger Patrol manpower strength in Tuktoyaktuk, Churchill, Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit, Moosonee or other communities and provide them with 3 good sized boats each as a means of doing limited, inshore only/river, patrols and transportation. Or heck...summer patrol via boat and snowmobile in winter. Make it a boat big enough for a section of troops to be carried and now you can start doing more dispersed drop offs....and I only say section due to both a) reasonable size of formed unit and b) Ukraine is showing lots of small units dispersed is the way of the future.

This is a 30' option and while I can't tell keel depth I have to imagine it's shallow enough to be effective in most of the environments I described above. Offshore Series | Raider Aluminum Boats | Colville Washington

No need to reinvent the wheel. AOPS already has a suitable landing craft.

Canadian Navy AOPS landing craft complete trials

Nova Scotia-based ABCO Industries has completed sea trials for the Royal Canadian Navy’s 12-meter landing craft in the summer of 2019 and delivered the first vessel in October 2019. They will supply these support boats for each of the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) currently under...

www.navaltoday.com

Put one (or more) of these in the larger coastal Arctic communities where there are Ranger Patrol Groups located. Would allow them to move their ATV's etc. further afield to expand their patrol areas and could also support CAF operations when we deploy there.

Ideally you could eventually supplement these with secure storage facilities (and local maintenance) for some CB90's at key locations along the NWP (Kugluktuk/Coppermine, Cambridge Bay, Nanisivik/Arctic Bay, Igloolik and Kinngait for example). At the start of the ice-free season Naval Reserve teams could fly in with the Comms Gear and weapons for the boats and conduct patrols as well as support for Ranger and CAF exercises. Additional CB90's could be stationed at coastal Naval Reserve units for training and support of local CAF exercises.

Edited to add: According to ChatGPT at least a CB90 can fit in a C17 with the radar mast folded and the runways at each of the locations I listed are long enough for a C17, so if over winter storage of the CB90's poses too many issues then the boats could be flown in and out instead.

 

[foresterab]

No need to reinvent the wheel. AOPS already has a suitable landing craft.

Canadian Navy AOPS landing craft complete trials

Nova Scotia-based ABCO Industries has completed sea trials for the Royal Canadian Navy’s 12-meter landing craft in the summer of 2019 and delivered the first vessel in October 2019. They will supply these support boats for each of the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) currently under...

www.navaltoday.com

Put one (or more) of these in the larger coastal Arctic communities where there are Ranger Patrol Groups located. Would allow them to move their ATV's etc. further afield to expand their patrol areas and could also support CAF operations when we deploy there.

Ideally you could eventually supplement these with secure storage facilities (and local maintenance) for some CB90's at key locations along the NWP (Kugluktuk/Coppermine, Cambridge Bay, Nanisivik/Arctic Bay, Igloolik and Kinngait for example). At the start of the ice-free season Naval Reserve teams could fly in with the Comms Gear and weapons for the boats and conduct patrols as well as support for Ranger and CAF exercises. Additional CB90's could be stationed at coastal Naval Reserve units for training and support of local CAF exercises.

Edited to add: According to ChatGPT at least a CB90 can fit in a C17 with the radar mast folded and the runways at each of the locations I listed are long enough for a C17, so if over winter storage of the CB90's poses too many issues then the boats could be flown in and out instead.

Thanks so much for the information. The Naval aspect is definitely the weakest knowledge point for me.

Those look like a great start...now to have enough to spare hulls and enough CAF members to man them as needed. Love the fact they should be a lower training need when compared to deep water vessels.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No need to reinvent the wheel. AOPS already has a suitable landing craft.

Canadian Navy AOPS landing craft complete trials

Nova Scotia-based ABCO Industries has completed sea trials for the Royal Canadian Navy’s 12-meter landing craft in the summer of 2019 and delivered the first vessel in October 2019. They will supply these support boats for each of the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) currently under...

www.navaltoday.com

Put one (or more) of these in the larger coastal Arctic communities where there are Ranger Patrol Groups located. Would allow them to move their ATV's etc. further afield to expand their patrol areas and could also support CAF operations when we deploy there.

Ideally you could eventually supplement these with secure storage facilities (and local maintenance) for some CB90's at key locations along the NWP (Kugluktuk/Coppermine, Cambridge Bay, Nanisivik/Arctic Bay, Igloolik and Kinngait for example). At the start of the ice-free season Naval Reserve teams could fly in with the Comms Gear and weapons for the boats and conduct patrols as well as support for Ranger and CAF exercises. Additional CB90's could be stationed at coastal Naval Reserve units for training and support of local CAF exercises.

Edited to add: According to ChatGPT at least a CB90 can fit in a C17 with the radar mast folded and the runways at each of the locations I listed are long enough for a C17, so if over winter storage of the CB90's poses too many issues then the boats could be flown in and out instead.

It's definitely a positive step up from rubber boats. I suspect a AOP's could transport and sustain a platoon of soldiers and a Ranger patrol, for patrol and sovereignty ops. The ship could receive and load stores in the south, sail north and the troops fly up and meet the ship somewhere and pick up the Rangers. Conduct the patrol ops, return the troops and patrol to the embarkation point, they fly home. The ship can then carry out other duties, eventually returning home.
These patrols can build knowledge and skill. Plus build caches and shelters at various important harbours and locations.

 

[Stoker]

It's definitely a positive step up from rubber boats. I suspect a AOP's could transport and sustain a platoon of soldiers and a Ranger patrol, for patrol and sovereignty ops. The ship could receive and load stores in the south, sail north and the troops fly up and meet the ship somewhere and pick up the Rangers. Conduct the patrol ops, return the troops and patrol to the embarkation point, they fly home. The ship can then carry out other duties, eventually returning home.
These patrols can build knowledge and skill. Plus build caches and shelters at various important harbours and locations.

AOPV can certainly carry a patrol of rangers and troops, the 20 person embarked forces mess and boarding party equipment room is tailor made for this in mind. The landing craft is not that good of a product. A couple of CB 90's on deck could be a viable alternative.