AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
- Thread starter Ex-Dragoon
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 10,082
- Points
- 1,140
Until we have two AORs in the water and operational, it makes sense to keep the capability around.
- Reaction score
- 2,003
- Points
- 1,160
I don't necessarily disagree. I would like to see a permanent option either with more JSS or leverage our relationship with South Korea and have several tankers built as a long term measure.
- Reaction score
- 9,387
- Points
- 1,210
PRO is delayed enough and PRE is ahead enough that they might be less than six months apart. Honestly this might turn into a Halifax/Vancouver situation at this point...
PRO also has way more first of class trials to do that PRE won't need to do.
The retain Asterix.campaign will fail based solely on crew availability. We have to stich together two tanker crews. That's going to be tight enough before we want to add a third.
- Reaction score
- 2,003
- Points
- 1,160
Seeing a lot of maneuvering to be the first crews on the tankers as it will no doubt a good go. For crewing I can see Federal Fleet stepping up with moe personnel to replace the naval crews, of course that comes with a price.
- Reaction score
- 10,082
- Points
- 1,140
If I'd had a chance I'd have been angling for Ops Chief in PRO, but beggars can't be choosers.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,156
- Points
- 1,010
The best thing that could come out of the end of the "Asterix" leasing contract is the creation of a CFAV "supply" side.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 19,489
- Points
- 1,260
I think we were shortsighted; we should have built Oblix as well and bought both of them outright.
- Reaction score
- 41,135
- Points
- 1,210
Buying them would have meant carving out capital (vote 5) from other projects; leasing means it's vote 1 (usually). Lots of bad decisions are driven by types of funding and when they are available.
PrairieFella
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,181
- Points
- 1,110
For those not imvolved in procurement - whats the rationale behind divvied pots of money instead of one fund? Also - why is it called vote haha.
- Reaction score
- 23,843
- Points
- 1,010
Not sure if you are being serious, but…
As I understand it:
Parliament “votes” the funding for DND (and every other Government Department) both annually and through supplemental votes during the year.
The funding is further sub-divided in to things like, pay, national procurement, Operations and Maintenance (etc- not an exhaustive list). That is set by Parliament. The CAF/DND therefore has no authority to alter those amounts and must stay within them. If DND/CAF thinks they are going to exceed something in-year, they need to go back and ask for authority to do so.
Since that authority is sometimes not granted (or deemed too difficult to ask for), it leads to weird decisions where maybe O&M funding gets used to “rent” a capability instead of buying it outright, because there was too much competition for National Procurement funding. Or maintenance gets deferred, even though everyone know an item will rot out, because the O&M budget is too small for a number of years in a row.
Happy to be corrected on any point above by our more ADM (Fin) adjacent members, here.
Similar threads
