Author Topic: Hospital ship for Canada  (Read 24413 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JLB50

  • Guest
  • *
  • 470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15
Hospital ship for Canada
« on: May 08, 2016, 13:25:29 »

An interesting idea I just read in Casr.ca about possibly converting a sister ship to the interim AOR (Project Resolve) into a hospital/disaster relief ship.

http://www.casr.ca/mp-daly-disaster-aid-hospital-ship.htm

What do you think?

 (Hopefully, I've linked properly to the CASR website...I'm not as proficient at this as many of you are...otherwise, sorry).



Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 434,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,575
  • Crewman
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2016, 13:31:13 »
Commendable suggestion.  Only problem with it is that then we would have to have Doctors and Nurses to man it.  We don't even have enough Doctors in the CAF a the moment to take care of the troops, let alone have dedicated Doctors positioned on a Hospital Ship.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2016, 13:53:23 »
NO! No friggin way !!!!!

If Canadians want an hospital ship to deploy for disaster relief, MAN IT WITH MERCHANT SEAMEN AND CIVILIAN HEALTH TRADES PERSONNEL.

I really don't care if Canadian want the military more involved in peacekeeping, disaster relief and humanitarian aid: That is NOT the job of the military.

Don't people understand that doing such work with the military means you are doing it at THREE TIMES THE COST of doing it with civilian agencies ?

/RANT OFF

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 518,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,613
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2016, 14:15:08 »
NO! No friggin way !!!!!
Correct..... but don't you see what a godsend this could be for an anti-military government and it's kumbaya constituents?

It cannot help but take up an inordinate amount of the 'war-fighting' defence budget and hard-sea PYs.  The Navy would have no choice but to cut back on it's real military role (because Admirals no longer resign to make a political statement).  The government then gets a knock-on benefit because there are less combatant options to offer to the international community when the call comes to contribute to the next inevitable coalition.  Win-win.  Hugs and lattes all around.

Personally, I think a hospital ship is a poor idea for multiple reasons.  As mentioned in the thread on the Defence Policy Review though, the government clearly doesn't like defence spending or interventions in any form other than a disarmed (mythical) blue beret role.  As such, I can see the good idea faeries being all over  this one. 

      :not-again:
Sadly amazed at people cheering on the spread of kakistocracy.   :not-again:

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 157,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,786
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2016, 14:39:42 »
It seems like its been quite some time since someone referenced CASR on these means, thinking it to provide a well thought out analysis of a military procurement issue.  Well, live and learn.

While my experience with "planning for a Canadian hospital ship" is admittedly quite long ago (late 1980s), if such did come to fruition, the manning would likely be along the same lines as the American hospital ships - Comfort and Mercy (USNSs not USSs) - civilian mariner crewed and medically manned (with the exception of a miniscule caretaker staff) only during operations and major exercises.  To be honest, back in the 1980s when this was proposed within the SurgGen branch, I don't think it went very far outside the medical world (reaction would probably have been similar to OGBD's) and the major proponent of the idea (my director at the time) was not viewed very kindly.  I do recall having to produce a service paper following a visit to D.C. to meet with BUMED pers who later took me on a very detailed tour of Comfort which at the time was homeported in Baltimore.

I'll second OGBD, though not as loudly.  There are better ways to spend "military" money.  Though you probably won't find it written anywhere (because no one, especially a politician, would want a paper trail of such a realistic viewpoint made public) probably the sole military organization that should be focused on "humanitarian" operations is DART; it is relatively cheap and not very manpower intensive and projects a good public image for the government when it can say that it is considering sending it somewhere - makes the government look good without having to actually do a lot.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline medicineman

  • Well stuck into my new job and thoroughly enjoying it.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 142,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,061
  • In Arduis Fidelis
    • Fed By The Firehose
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2016, 16:04:35 »
If they want to do something like that, they might as well just stay with an expanded role 1 CFH - faster to deploy, equipment is reasonably available, just mesh the people and fire them out the door.  Now that the C-17's are actually available, it can be projected faster than a ginormous ship.  Plus, they won't need to try and deploy a butt load of helicopters to shuttle the casualties back and forth, not to mention escort ships.  Agreed though, if they were to go with something mentally challenged like that, crew it with a mixed bag, not solely military.

:2c:

MM
MM

Remember the basics of Medicine - "Pink is GOOD, Blue is BAD, Air goes in AND out, Blood Goes Round and Round"

I may sound like a pessimist, but I am a realist.

Offline JLB50

  • Guest
  • *
  • 470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2016, 16:44:29 »
I suppose that if we had a much larger navy, then it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. 

But if Project Resolve were to have a sister ship, then why not another AOR (either leased or owned by the RCN)?  And, most likely, the hospital ship would be docked for months or even years before a disaster came along requiring its usage.  Talk about wasting taxpayer's money.

On the other hand, an LHD or similar type ship, when not serving in a purely military capacity, could serve many of the same functions as the proposed hospital ship. Earlier, when I said the proposal was "interesting", I didn't mean to imply that I was in favour of it.  However, it did catch my interest. Cheers.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 22,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 699
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2016, 16:49:48 »
Could hospital facilities not be installed aboard one of the upcoming AOR ships, whether it is the Berlin class or the interm AOR?

I don't know if the hospital ships in USN service are all that busy - although I could be wrong?  If they aren't in extremely high demand, then chances are having a hospital ship in Canadian Navy service would be a rather redundant capability that would only marginally add to what the USNS can provide - and at a cost in terms of dollars & manpower that we simply cannot afford. 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline JLB50

  • Guest
  • *
  • 470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2016, 18:56:55 »
If I recall correctly, the interim oiler (Project Resolve) was supposed to have some hospital facilities but have no idea as to the number of beds or types of supportive medical equipment. Not sure about the Berlin class ships. 

The Mistral carriers are described as having a 69 bed hospital, two operating theatres, dental, etc., the equivalent facilities of a city of 20,000.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2016, 19:00:31 »
The Hospital ships of the US Navy are for the purpose of large scale opposed Marines landings where heavy casualties (exceeding greatly the Hospital facilities of the Amphibious force ships) are expected. Period. Sole reason for existence. They go back to the Pacific Island fighting of WWII.

For us in Canada, first of all, the AOR's do have surgical theatre and dental surgery theatre, accompanied by a large Sick Bay with a reasonable number of critical care beds. That's all you really need to support the Navy's needs.

If you want large ships with more: Get amphibs, like the Mistral's or the Canberra's. They have a small hospital as part of their make up and if need be, some of the nearby mess decks for troop transport can be turned into extra hospital beds, increasing the capacity for medical aid by that much. However, the rest of the time (the 15 years between two weeks stints as large capacity hospitals  :nod:) they can fulfill all sorts of various task related to the role of  a military: war or training of war, not to mention they would do a lot more for affirming our sovereignty in peace time.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 475,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,290
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2016, 07:26:00 »
My guess is that the folks at Davie, like me, believe that the outcome of the Defence Review is already written and the "team" is there to organize submissions around it (the foregone conclusion), in a supportive manner.

Organization like Mercy Ships and Project HOPE (which no longer operates a ship) do good work but there is room for more.

         

I'm guessing that Davie will propose a Francophone or bilingual ship ~ my sense (uninformed, except by one friend who worked for them some years ago) is that Africa Mercy is run by Americans and works, mainly in English ~ owned and operated by Davie under a very lucrative, long term lease to Foreign Affairs. (My other guess is that Foreign Affairs would not want to share any credit for this sort of thing with DND.)

Personally, I think it fits well with what I sense as the "Trudeau vision" and it could* be operated in a way that enhances Canada's influence in Africa: a region which is growing in economic importance, although I doubt Foreign Affairs sees it in such crass, self interested terms.

____
* But it's the government, after all, and a Canadian government at that, so look to it to be operated in a way that backfires and brings us ridicule and scorn ~ think health care in Ontario.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 57,007
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,792
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2016, 07:47:49 »
I don't get why they have such a problem with an "orphan class"

Ship maintenance is a pretty clear thing, maintenance time lines, required spares, etc, are all pretty well defined, doesn't matter if you've got one boat or ten.

Beyond that, what purpose would it even serve? We have no marines.

If it's just something to wave the flag and feel good about in the crappies parts of the earth, then why dump it on the military?

Slap a coast guard flag on it or fund an NGO to do it. It'll cost a fraction of the price and far easier to get rid of once it's no longer the flavour of the day.

For that matter, is it even the flavour of the day? Has anyone other than CASR even suggested it?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 08:05:09 by Not a Sig Op »
Remember troops, the minimum acceptable standard is still an acceptable standard.

Online whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,640
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2016, 09:21:17 »
The think the  standby costs of a Hospital ship like this would be quite significant. To JM's point, that may be quite advantageous for ulterior political motives.

Aside from funding issue, sourcing enough experienced medical personnel who would be willing to serve (confined) on the vessel would be a challenge for our recruiters and PSO's. Surely a lot of extra incentive would need to be paid.
The ship would need a security detachment (a PL of MP? Infantry?), air crew, specialized helicopters, an armed escort, air cover etc. The last 4 may be sourced by Allies if we can find some that are stupid enough to play along.

A more useful peacekeeping/peace support ship would be 2 or 3 very large ships with ramps and mexe floats, 4-5 medium Helo's, the ships cargo spaces loaded to capacity with engineering stores and thousands of lane meters for heavy equipment that can be used to open ports, roadways, clear debris, build proper refugee camps (with medical facilities), temporarily repair infrastructure (Water lines, telecommunications, power, runways etc), and also supply the ground troops to guard, defend and police those operations.  Because the vessel would not be a "Hospital Ship", it could be fitted (or "fitted for") PDMS, RAM, CIWS and the like.      These ships could be in the 700-800 foot (or larger)  length, 40-50,000 tons.

A very small standing Naval crew for port standby and basic navigation, a few more personnel for combat systems, and when deployed the enhanced operational crew drawn from rest of the CAF primarily from the land forces and the RCAF. The standby costs, once loaded with stores except the heavy equipment would be "lower", but certainly not minimal, but given the amount of opportunity for a ship like this to be utilized, I would expect for very little standby time other than required to reload stores, return -exchange equipment etc. 

This would clearly not be an "assault ship", an LHD or LPD or anything like that. But it would give the RCN and the CAF an ability to land (in a permissive environment) a significant combat and construction engineering force (if we had one) into either a disaster zone or property recently fought over by others.  Looking forward 20 years, the new custom of "we don't do the actual fightin'" on the ground as this will be done by others", (same with air cover etc.), will be well entrenched.  One or two of the half dozen CSC's that will actually get built might be around as escort, if available.

It would probably also stretch the RCN over the breaking point, but that's another discussion and an outcome that nobody politically really cares about.






Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2016, 09:35:33 »
Don't get me wrong ERC. If the Government of Canada wants to provide health services to less developed countries through the use of floating "mercy" hospitals, I have no problem so long as it's done by civilians, under the aegis of Foreign (I positively hate calling it "Global") Affairs and is paid from the foreign aid budget - not the military.

I have to say, that would be a new development in world affairs. The two organizations you refer to (Project Hope and MercyShips Organization) are religiously funded organizations that are NGO. I am not aware of any government run similar organization that provide such service, and for good reasons: For a government to go and operate in another country is much more complex to organize than a NGO. You need permission from the other state government, inter-government coordination, consideration for the existence or not of disputes between government, influence of ex-colonial status or not, or interference from other foreign government for their own purpose, etc. etc. You make the "mercy" ship military and you just doubled the complexity of making arrangements. (If you think that providing needed health care to its citizens takes priority over maintenance of at least the appearance of legitimately governing the country by overtly "lording-it" over the rich Western democracy government offering aid for the "presidents for life" of those "democracies", you are deluding yourself.)

Actually, NSO, there is no problem with an "orphan" class if, and only if, the contribution of the class is of such value to the fleet as to justify the extra cost. A good example was the AOR's before they were retired (and same when we get the two Berlin's), which were the last two steamships in the fleet. So you had to keep a full set of "everything steam" on each coast.

Orphan class costs a lot more per ship to maintain. Think set of plans. One per class to keep up to date. Same cost for an orphan as a full class, but per ship, the plans of the large class get divided by the number in the class. Same for stocks of IOR items that would otherwise restrict a ship alongside. Example: anchor. Sounds benign, but you are not allowed to sail without your full complement of anchors. Sure, you very, very  seldom need an anchor replaced, but when you do, it is extremely important to be able to replace immediately. So, emergency stocks are kept in store as long as a class of ships is in service. However, that means that for an orphan class, you may keep one in stock for the individual ship, while for a full class of, say, seven ships on one coast, you will only keep two in stock.

Multiply that by all similar type of items and keeping an orphan becomes much more expansive than full class. So, again, it matters then that the force multiplication such orphan ship provides you for your operation makes it worthwhile. An Hospital ship is definitely NOT in that category.

And W601, I'll reiterate what I said just above here: We must keep in mind that there is a name for taking military forces (of any size or description) into another country without that country's government permission: It's called an invasion and it is an act of war. Just because we happen to be Canadians and have good intentions will not change that. So the question becomes: In the next, say 35 years, how often do we expect to have major disasters occurring in foreign countries or localized wars lead to cease-fires but lengthy peace negotiations requiring peacekeeping, for which the foreign government will ask for or accept the offers of Canadian military assistance? Then is such a number high enough to warrant the expenditure of funds, or is there a cheaper way to provide the same assistance? Canadians wanting the CF to do more disaster relief and peacekeeping is irrelevant without the "receiving" nation giving permission.

My gut feeling is that it is a very small number, bordering on zero.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 420,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,908
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2016, 09:48:05 »
So, emergency stocks are kept in store as long as a class of ships is in service.

This being Canada, we still have spares for the St Laurent class in storage...

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 Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 518,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,613
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2016, 10:01:05 »
For that matter, is it even the flavour of the day? Has anyone other than CASR even suggested it?
It's not even a CASR suggestion, but rather one of their 'contributors.'  Looking at his "expertise," I'd be hesitant to give a lot of credence to his suggestion; as noted, in less than one page of responses here, people with actual experience in political, naval, technical, etc  issues have pretty much dismissed the idea.

I'd suggest that claiming strategic expertise requires more than "CD" after your name (even with additional Commissionaires G4S' security guard experience).* 


* Yes, I Googled his Linkedin profile    ;)
Sadly amazed at people cheering on the spread of kakistocracy.   :not-again:

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2016, 10:17:04 »
This being Canada, we still have spares for the St Laurent class in storage...

But surely, that's in case one of the St-laurent artificial reef starts to drag on the ocean floor and needs extra anchors ...  ;D

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 420,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,908
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2016, 10:18:23 »
As I heard it, we still have props in the warehouse...
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 Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2016, 10:24:53 »
Wow! Don't  storesmen know the value of brass on the secondary market? It's not like anyone will come looking for one, just sayin'  ...   :temptation: :whistle:

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 420,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,908
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2016, 10:49:42 »
Comd RCN might want one as a lawn ornament...
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

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,239
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2016, 11:03:08 »
....

Beyond that, what purpose would it even serve? We have no marines.

If it's just something to wave the flag and feel good about in the crappies parts of the earth, then why dump it on the military?


I will not argue the requirement for a large floating military hospital.  As noted the military isn't big enough to need it.

But.

I continually hear concerns from the fighting forces that they can't get they stuff they need where and when they need it.  The logistics piece of the puzzle.  And yet nobody ever seems to want to spend the money on the cargo lift.

This type of ship, could just as easily be a variant of a JSS/LPD like HMS Argus.  You could get the planning for the LPD done by commissioning the Hospital Ship variant out of the gate first.

And I am not of the opinion that air lifting 1CFH is an equivalent solution, as the C17s need a secure strip to land on and then the strip needs a security force to keep it secure.  And helicopters are going to be in demand if the situation is such that a large hospital is required to manage a large number of casualties.

Your current army may not need a large logistics capability but it comes in very handy very fast.  And when you aren't using it then it can be quite useful in domestic emergencies and in making friends overseas.

I daresay that there have been numerous occasions when civil authorities would have much preferred to see a battalion of truck drivers and their vehicles show up than a battalion of infanteers.  And DFAIT would no doubt have much preferred to have an LPD/H with a good sized hospital facility in containers on board to offer to New Orleans or Haiti.

It is argued that SAR, as conducted by the CAF, is not a military function and yet I hear that you don't want to get rid of the function because you fear losing the budget. But the budget isn't serving any useful military function.  So you have already "lost" that money.  Except that it also bought 15 helicopters that could be used for other military functions if repainted and you have a corps of very proficient personnel that have a unique set of skills.

The more I see of the discussions the more I think that the Logistics Branch should be its own service with its own fleet of aircraft, ships and trucks.  Because everyone in the fighting forces seems to want to spend money on guns even if it means there is no money to deliver bullets to the guns.

And strangely enough those militarized civilian functions that you need to be able to spool up rapidly are the very areas where a part-time force of civilians could come in handy.

/rant off.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,640
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2016, 11:48:32 »
[quote author=Oldgateboatdriver link=topic=122984.msg1434289#msg1434289 date=146280093

And W601, I'll reiterate what I said just above here: We must keep in mind that there is a name for taking military forces (of any size or description) into another country without that country's government permission: It's called an invasion and it is an act of war. Just because we happen to be Canadians and have good intentions will not change that. So the question becomes: In the next, say 35 years, how often do we expect to have major disasters occurring in foreign countries or localized wars lead to cease-fires but lengthy peace negotiations requiring peacekeeping, for which the foreign government will ask for or accept the offers of Canadian military assistance? Then is such a number high enough to warrant the expenditure of funds, or is there a cheaper way to provide the same assistance? Canadians wanting the CF to do more disaster relief and peacekeeping is irrelevant without the "receiving" nation giving permission.

My gut feeling is that it is a very small number, bordering on zero.
[/quote]

No crap. Thanks for giving me an education. NO WHERE in my post did I suggest an invasion or entering the jurisdiction without the invitation of a foreign state. In fact, I specifically made it clear that others will do the fighting/invading or whatever happens in between. Obviously there would have to be UN mandates and all the months long prerequisites of international law. Just like Haiti, Lebanon etc. [sarcasm]...   

Of course there's a cheaper way to assist - send cash, lawyers, and government/governance experts. Even factoring in a 100 percent over expenditure for graft, corruption, inefficiency and incompetence, it would still be cheaper than having a Navy or military which successive governments in power have failed to understand or support.     

And they may as well just get on with disbanding and removing any part of the armed forces that could be deployed (which would be most of it).   I don't really care about the good intentions of Canadians either, those intentions shift with the wind and are not reliable enough for planning. In any event, if they ever have to choose between a social assistance benefit or (a) the armed forces or (b) giving up some remote northern islands and resources or (c) embracing the idea of responsibility to protect and similar theories  ...well, we all know the answer to that.
 
On the other hand, the horizon for the armed forces is already pretty grey with rainbow smoke and a scattered mist of unicorn feces.   The people up top better come up with something that will be seen as useful to foreign policy which will also make the government look good to the electorate. It does not matter if the option is useless to actual need for national defence, or to any future conflict or PSO. It seems trite to say, but Parliament long ago abandoned it's duty to act responsibly for national defence (if they ever did), and so this is left to the ideological whims and the issues that influence the government of today, and not the government(s) we will have for the next 35 years (although it may just be the same party ....).

   

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2016, 12:00:00 »


I continually hear concerns from the fighting forces that they can't get they stuff they need where and when they need it.  The logistics piece of the puzzle.  And yet nobody ever seems to want to spend the money on the cargo lift.

This type of ship, could just as easily be a variant of a JSS/LPD like HMS Argus.  You could get the planning for the LPD done by commissioning the Hospital Ship variant out of the gate first.


I believe you are mixing apples and oranges here, Chris.

First of all, HMS ARGUS is neither a JSS nor a LPD. She is a converted container ship, part of the fleet auxiliaries, whose original purpose is (was?) aviation training. She happens to have a good shipboard hospital for up to seventy people in order to support British forces engaged in combat oversea. This is hardly an hospital ship, even though this mission has now become it's primary focus.

Secondly, the LPD's and JSS' you talk about don't have "variants", one of which is "hospital ship". They carry a hospital as part of their standard fitted facilities. However, for the JSS (the only known one, HNLMS Karel Doorman) this is a 20 beds facility; for two of the most likely candidates for LPD/H, the Mistral or Canberra classes, the hospital facilities are for about seventy beds. So again here, we are not talking "hospital ships".

And a true hospital ship does not give you sealift capability for cargo.

There is no denying (and no one in the Navy has denied) that afloat logistics is a valid naval mission and that true JSS or LPD/H would be good additions to the fleet. However, we are dealing. from naval point of view, with very limited financial resources and almost even more limited manning capability. Choices are then required and maintenance of general purpose fighting forces takes first priority - that's all. And I don't know who would complain about having such ship as JSS or LPD/H, just not a single task dedicated hospital ship.

As for the usefulness of an LPD with medical facilities in containers loaded on board, what you are describing is CFH1 embarked on an LPD. Just get the LPD and you're there - but you then also get the usefulness of an LPD.

Also, airlifting CFH1 is equivalent. I'll say it again (its not sinking in some people) you CAN'T just drop in another country with your military (or other government service) uninvited. If you are invited, then the government of that state will provide you with a secure airfield and ensure it's security. In any event, the same requirement for invitation and a secure harbour exists for deploying by sea. And if we are talking disaster relief, why would there be any "security" concern one way or the other?

Finally, turning the Logistics branch into it's own service would be a disaster. When we don't get proper support now, at least we can turn to our own logistic chain directly. If it was it's own service, it would look for its own first and in case of problems, operators would have to go up to service chiefs to resolve almost all problems. In any event, it would be dangerous for the "logistic service" ships and trucks. In the Navy and Army, we have geographical command: If it comes into our box, it belongs to us. If it doesn't, it's an enemy and we shoot it  [:D.     

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 518,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,613
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2016, 12:04:20 »
Of course there's a cheaper way to assist - send cash, lawyers, and government/governance experts.

What a crappy thing to do;  like they don't have enough difficulties!   ;D
      :stirpot:
Sadly amazed at people cheering on the spread of kakistocracy.   :not-again:

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,749
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Hospital ship for Canada
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2016, 12:23:00 »
I would purchase a Mistral class and have a kit to install a semi-hospital in it. Can't service as many people at one time, but it would be more flexible, able to bring people to itself by helicopter and landing craft. Plus it could do other non-hospital stuff as well.