Author Topic: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR  (Read 75302 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,488
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #50 on: September 22, 2014, 14:26:39 »
SMART-L was looked at and deemed unfeasible as it would require cutting and stretching the Halifax's to accommodate the extra top weight, and such a radical redesign was simply more expensive than getting new ships from scratch.

On the other hand, I agree that we should look at leasing support capability until the new AOR's (I won't call them JSS) come on line.

Also, GR66, the other nations that do buy offshore do buy ships as sophisticated as the CSC's: Australia's purchases of Spanish AAW destroyers and amphibious ships, or MEKO and American frigates before is a good example.

Finally, no one should think that we are about to magically inherit a large number of unemployed seaman just because four ships will soon decommission. As the trickle of releases from these four ships occur over time, the released personnel will simply be absorbed in an otherwise undermanned fleet, with perhaps enough of an overage that some people will finally be able to attend long career courses that have been postponed to service the fleet - thus finally being able to enjoy promotions that were overdue. In due time, it may even permit the Navy to put together the first crew of the AOPS right from the beginning of their construction, thus letting them learn and get ready during construction and be able to observe said construction from the start: This is invaluable preparation, especially for the engineering trades who can learn the "nuts and bolts" of their new ship before even going at sea in her.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #51 on: September 22, 2014, 14:37:56 »
For you special deal

http://www.shipworldbrokerage.com/Pages/PatrolFrig.aspx

http://www.shipworldbrokerage.com/Pages/TankerVessels.aspx

http://www.shipworldbrokerage.com/Pages/Tugs.aspx

http://www.tampers.eu/Military-Landing-craft-for-Sale-2-pct.html

http://commercial.apolloduck.ca/listings.phtml?cid=27 - Since we are reviving old ranks, we can revive another honourable tradition, the armed Merchant cruiser! Perfect for luring in pirates and likes. Downside is Admirals and staff officers might find the quarters comfy and spend to much time aboard.

Online suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 304
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #52 on: September 22, 2014, 17:04:10 »
SMART-L was looked at and deemed unfeasible as it would require cutting and stretching the Halifax's to accommodate the extra top weight, and such a radical redesign was simply more expensive than getting new ships from scratch.

On the other hand, I agree that we should look at leasing support capability until the new AOR's (I won't call them JSS) come on line.

Also, GR66, the other nations that do buy offshore do buy ships as sophisticated as the CSC's: Australia's purchases of Spanish AAW destroyers and amphibious ships, or MEKO and American frigates before is a good example.

Finally, no one should think that we are about to magically inherit a large number of unemployed seaman just because four ships will soon decommission. As the trickle of releases from these four ships occur over time, the released personnel will simply be absorbed in an otherwise undermanned fleet, with perhaps enough of an overage that some people will finally be able to attend long career courses that have been postponed to service the fleet - thus finally being able to enjoy promotions that were overdue. In due time, it may even permit the Navy to put together the first crew of the AOPS right from the beginning of their construction, thus letting them learn and get ready during construction and be able to observe said construction from the start: This is invaluable preparation, especially for the engineering trades who can learn the "nuts and bolts" of their new ship before even going at sea in her.

Is an enhanced AD capability something the RCN should have in the next 15 years?
Is there some other way of incorporating it in either the Halifax class or other platforms?
The Smart-L weighs 8 tonnes(?) how much does the smart-s weigh?
Would removing the hanger/helicopter help alleviate the weight issue?
How about another system like AN/SPY-1K?

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #53 on: September 22, 2014, 23:23:31 »
If there is a surplus of sailors, lease a couple of icebreakers, paint them grey, put light armament on them and let them train and work in the arctic. Start now and everything should be ready for next season.

Also look at some small vessel stuff, including small patrol boats and landing craft, anything that can be leased. It would be challenging and give Junior Officers more chances of command and broaden the experience base in the navy.

It's all Harper's double-secret plan to buy both the Russian Mistrals.


Matthew. ;D
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,726
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #54 on: September 22, 2014, 23:25:51 »
Is an enhanced AD capability something the RCN should have in the next 15 years?

Should have had it 15 years ago, but I doubt it will materialize in the next 15 years.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2014, 03:17:25 »
http://youtu.be/hha91X0cojI?t=4m15s

ahem, some things dont change we are back to here
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #56 on: September 23, 2014, 10:48:31 »
It's all Harper's double-secret plan to buy both the Russian Mistrals.


Matthew. ;D

I was giving it a thought. A Mistral Class appears to have a complement of 160 personal, the Iroquois Class is suppose to be 280 (both from Wiki) So from a manning perspective it's doable to run one of these ships. That does not include running an Air arm or the Hospital function. However if we did order one of these(not the Russian ones), we could offer the bare hull and crew to various operations where other countries provide the other elements. This could buy us quite a bit of political favour with minimal operational risks. Wiki claims the cost is $600million USD. With the loss of the current ships and the the amount of money the DND has given back, 2 of the issues can be dealt with. Plus ordering it from overseas means no impact on our current semi-mythical Ship building program. Once you have the ship you can push for a Air arm and tailor other units to support it.   

Offline MikeKiloPapa

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 42
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2014, 11:12:24 »
Is an enhanced AD capability something the RCN should have in the next 15 years?


In the long term absolutely ( as should all maritime nations )...but for now i think you are fairly well covered by the USN and the rest of NATO,  so i agree that you should prioritize ASW capability and AOPS/OPV.

Quote
Is there some other way of incorporating it in either the Halifax class or other platforms?
Most certainly, perhaps with something like an enlarged CEAFAR installation. But top tier AAW systems is ridiculously expensive and the question is if it is worth the investment on vessels that have, at best , 15-20 years left in service.

Quote
The Smart-L weighs 8 tonnes(?) how much does the smart-s weigh?
~1,5 tonnes , give or take.

Quote
How about another system like AN/SPY-1K?
A much heavier system that in addition requires a lot of space for installation , either on  the superstructure or on a very heavy mast. Besides SPY-1K is yesterdays technology and has very little upgrade potential left. By today's standards it doesn't have particular impressive performance either and there are plenty of smaller, cheaper and more capable radars on the market.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,488
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #58 on: September 23, 2014, 11:45:22 »
Colin, I think the actual figures are more like Mistral = 182, IRO = 245, without the senior command element.

Also, and that is the beauty, Mistral don't have an "air arm". As amphibious ships, you cut your cloth as required by the mission you are embarking on: You wish to carry out ground forces landing, you bring medium/large troop transport army helicopters with some gunships to escort them; you want to be the centrepiece of an ASW group: you load up with MH's; going in the Arctic for general duties? Load up with some utility helicopters, etc.

The added air element does not have to be accounted for as it is provided by the army or air force as required by the mission. In fact, since the four retired ships (2 AOR and 2 DDH) are all MH carrying ships, pressure on the resources of the Maritime Air Group for the provision of Sea kings has been reduced accordingly, meaning some would be available for a Mistral just by getting back to pre-decommissioning tempo.

Also, we don't count the medical personnel as "ship assigned" when the AORs carried medical/dental personnel, they were usually added personnel from the CF medical service onboard for deployment.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #59 on: September 23, 2014, 12:03:05 »
I suspect also the Mistrals would lend themselves to the "deep maintenance" required to keep those Sea Kings flying till the Cyclones arrive. Speaking of which, what is the heaviest helicopter the Mistrals can handle? I suspect if they could take the weight of a F35B you woulds still need to protect the deck from the thrust as well. 

Offline Privateer

    Looking for the bubble.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 18,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 351
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2014, 17:58:16 »
From CBC:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-navy-looks-to-fill-fleet-gap-with-purchase-from-u-s-1.2775533

Quote
The Royal Canadian Navy may purchase a soon-to-be retired ship from the U.S. to replace its two supply vessels forced into retirement since a government ship-building program has been delayed by several years, CBC News has learned.

...

Canadian navy officers have turned to the U.S. navy to fill the gap, sources told CBC News.

The U.S. navy has two supply ships heading toward early retirement: the USNS Bridge and the USNS Rainier. The U.S. navy is retiring these two ships, built in the 1990s, to cut costs, it announced this summer.

Leasing the Rainier or Bridge would be a good idea, naval expert Ken Hansen said, because it would provide more capability at a lesser cost.

In addition to purchasing or leasing one of these two ships from the U.S., the Canadian navy may also buy or lease foreign-built civilian ships and convert them to meet its needs.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 16,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 619
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #61 on: September 23, 2014, 18:11:01 »
Sounds like a armed boarding party is in order, cutting out a frigate is part of the tradition! Of course it will have to be cleansed of Lutefisk afterwards!

Off topic, but seeing as they are going willy nilly on the historical side, that would be the perfect opportunity to get my letter of marque and a cape!  Also, a pretty funny charge sheet.

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,572
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #62 on: September 23, 2014, 20:52:43 »
The Wikipedia entries for the USNS Bridge and the USNS Rainier.

I note that the ships were originally fitted with the following weapon systems, which were removed when they were de-commissioned.

- NATO Sea Sparrow Missile Launching System
- Close-In-Weapons-System (CIWS)
- 25mm guns (x2)
- .50 Caliber Machine Guns (x4)
- Countermeasures Set - AN/SLQ-32(V)3
- Decoy Launchers (x4)
- Torpedo Countermeasures Transmitting Set (NIXIE).

So, the question is, IF Canada buys them, would it it be feasible/practical to re-fit them with these weapons systems or something similiar??
Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 53,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 606
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #63 on: September 23, 2014, 21:07:26 »
The Wikipedia entries for the USNS Bridge and the USNS Rainier.

I note that the ships were originally fitted with the following weapon systems, which were removed when they were de-commissioned.

- NATO Sea Sparrow Missile Launching System
- Close-In-Weapons-System (CIWS)
- 25mm guns (x2)
- .50 Caliber Machine Guns (x4)
- Countermeasures Set - AN/SLQ-32(V)3
- Decoy Launchers (x4)
- Torpedo Countermeasures Transmitting Set (NIXIE).

So, the question is, IF Canada buys them, would it it be feasible/practical to re-fit them with these weapons systems or something similiar??

Would it be worthwhile to fit them with weapons?  Do we normally deploy our AORs where they are in harms way without other support? 

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 429,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,089
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #64 on: September 23, 2014, 22:18:53 »
So, the question is, IF Canada buys them, would it it be feasible/practical to re-fit them with these weapons systems or something similiar??

Depends on how we try to acquire the systems.  The US has many, many, many rules on the use of weapons systems it has developed; purchase through a foreign military sales agreement could take a long time.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #65 on: September 24, 2014, 05:03:26 »
Depends on how we try to acquire the systems.  The US has many, many, many rules on the use of weapons systems it has developed; purchase through a foreign military sales agreement could take a long time.

That said though, with a drop for 3 to 2 AOR's given current budget projections for our replacement project, purchasing these two ships would not only be a stop gap, but increase the fleet to four ships total once the new ones hit the water (that is if we keep them in the long run, I mean they are only 20 some odd years old, our average life span is 50, they got another 30 years on em!) and be a politcally acceptable way for the public to accept getting more ships for less money.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Online suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 304
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #66 on: September 24, 2014, 09:33:40 »
Thanks MikeKiloPapa for your responses

The acquisition of the 2 fast supply ships might allow the Polar Icebreaker to jump ahead of the AOR's and help fill another void

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,639
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #67 on: September 24, 2014, 09:46:41 »
I don't think we can afford the pers bill for one these ships let alone two.
From Wikipedia

40 Officers, 36 Chief Petty Officer's and 591 Rates.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #68 on: September 24, 2014, 10:04:48 »
USN and USCCG seems to over staff their vessels and quarters are generally tighter.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,639
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #69 on: September 24, 2014, 10:08:43 »
USN and USCCG seems to over staff their vessels and quarters are generally tighter.

I wondered about that. It would likely come down to the stoker and bosn requirements.  Also we could reduce the number stations (fueling and heavy line transfers) being manned at one time.

Online suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 304
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #70 on: September 24, 2014, 10:18:07 »
When I looked up the staffing numbers I have between 206-235 after they were disarmed(?) prior to that over 700. Obviously something that would be looked into

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #71 on: September 24, 2014, 10:35:46 »
Usually the US navy have many pers doing a lot of small tasks, whereas Canada has a few trades doing much more.  If we do get these ships I would imagine the crewing similar to the Preserver. The ships are gas turbines as well and will be fairly expensive to operate, tanker personnel would have to be trained in from steam to gas turbines and are the same type we have. I also noticed they carry much more JP5 than F76, I would imagine that is because they supply Carriers, shouldn't be a problem to reduce the amout of JP5 they carry and increase F76. They also operate the Sea Knight so should be able to handle the Sea King or replacement nicely.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #72 on: September 24, 2014, 11:37:22 »
Speaking from experience with RASing with USN and American built platforms such as OHP's etc, another reason they need more manpower is that they would need bodies to haul in ropes etc as they didn't have the winches that we had for span wires etc.  Speaking for my trade, HT, as I understand there are at least 5 USN trades that cover what we do.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,488
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #73 on: September 24, 2014, 12:05:39 »
Overstaffing with hyper specialized personnel is also my experience with the Americans. I once day-sailed on one of their minesweeper where they had 23 engineers of four different trade designations at a time when we operated the equivalent PB's with 11 of two designations.

I don't think manning these two ships would require more than our current AOR crew. After they were transferred from the USN to the USNS (civilians), their manning went down to about 210-235 (depending on the size of the USN contingent carried). I suspect this means that they did install (if not already there) the various winches and other handling systems designed to reduce manpower requirements. We would not need more manpower just because we would transfer the PRO class current  defensive armament to these two ships after "acquisition". Such transfer of armament we already own after acquisition would also remove any impediment based on US regulations of trade in armament.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 16,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 619
Re: Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR
« Reply #74 on: September 26, 2014, 21:46:43 »
I thought the leasing option was going to be 'with crew' with some RCN staff for support/cross training.  Also, I thought in this particular case, they are retiring them as part of the budget cuts, so we should get a deal on them as they want an excuse to keep them going.  Anyone know any different?