Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 478407 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,834
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,106
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1125 on: August 28, 2018, 12:33:00 »
Aren't we also forgetting the vessels that are alongside or in for maintenance?

Of the "11-15" CSCs, "5-6" AOPS and "2-3" AORs how many will actually be at sea either on station or in transit?

15+6+3 = 24
11+5+2 = 18

Will there be 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of the fleet at sea at any one time?

It's more complicated than that; just because a ship is at sea does not mean that she has an air det and helo embarked.

In fact, I've only ever sailed with a helo in 3 situations:
1. Air Workups;
2. SHOAL Trials (barf); and
3. Deployments.

Sometimes we seem to sail with a helo for Task Group exercises, but not always.

So, our demand for ships at sea could be a lot higher than our demand for embarked helos. For example, we could have 4 CPFs and a JSS at sea from the East coast alone, 2 of which are down off the US coast participating in a TGEX, 1 CPF doing trials with the JSS off of Halifax, and 1 on deployment. In this scenario, it's very possible that only the deployed CPF has a helo.

In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:

"The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."

"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,977
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,059
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1126 on: August 28, 2018, 12:41:53 »
Good point. But, I do wonder how often they will be used with AOPS. At least initially, I heard the plan was to fly with CCG helo’s and Air Dets. Then, there were some rumblings about Griffons. I got the impression from all this that the Cyclones were going to be too much in demand to be tasked to do whatever the DEWOLF’s will be doing.

That is correct, they will embark with a CCG helo for the 4 months in the Arctic. However they will be embarking other places as well.
"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

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1127 on: August 28, 2018, 12:44:43 »
Aren't we also forgetting the vessels that are alongside or in for maintenance?

Of the "11-15" CSCs, "5-6" AOPS and "2-3" AORs how many will actually be at sea either on station or in transit?

15+6+3 = 24
11+5+2 = 18

Will there be 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of the fleet at sea at any one time?

As I said, the authorized manning for 12 Wing *was* as of my last interaction with it, 3 years ago) based on 15 det equivalents in 11 dets.  That means 15 aircraft, with 7 dets having 2 crews and a "single" maintenance org (11 maintainers and 8 aircrew) with 1 helo, and 4 dets with 3 crews and an augmented maintenance org (forget the actual manning).  This totals 15 aircraft.  Of the remainder, some are back at 423/443 for the remaining people on the squadrons (ie command, ops, and standards and readiness), some are at 406 (the training squadron, whose pipe has to keep flowing to produce dets), and some are at 12AMS in deep maintenance.  The number of aircraft, 28, was the minimum to maintain that org; notice that there are none for attrition.  Originally the EH-101 buy was for 35 plus 15 SAR, but it was cut to 28 before the 93 election, and then obviously cancelled afterwards.  The restarted project was for 28 aircraft.

During non surge ops the dets are deployed 1 in 4; it doesn't mean they are not at sea, but it means they are not on international ops.  So that means at any given time, in non-surge ops, you have approximately 2 single helo dets and 1 two helo dets available for international deployment.  This is also true for the Navy; historically you have have half(ish) of the ships at high readiness, with one task group ready to deploy, 1 ship actually on international ops, and one either getting ready to leave or just coming back.  There is a combined RCAF and RCN committee that plans to match dets and ships based on RCN needs.

From my understanding, the army is also familiar with this construct; it can *sustain* 1 out of 4 deployed.  One is getting ready to go, one is deployed, one coming back, and one regenerating.

My point is, counting aircraft and hulls doesn't give the answer; you need to take into account force generation, maintenance, deployment cycles... it's also not a static organization, it is tailored to the needs of current ops.

It is going to take a long time for 12 Wing to build up to authorized manning, and I'm positive as they learn about the aircraft they'll optimize det organization and number of dets.  It is also going to take the RCN a long time to build up authorized strength *once* they get the hulls as well.  I would think that they will retain the capability to create 2 helo dets for two reasons; depth in the TG, and flexibility if Protecteur / Preserver deploy on ops like humanitarian assistance.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1128 on: August 28, 2018, 12:49:48 »
It's more complicated than that; just because a ship is at sea does not mean that she has an air det and helo embarked.

In fact, I've only ever sailed with a helo in 3 situations:
1. Air Workups;
2. SHOAL Trials (barf); and
3. Deployments.

Sometimes we seem to sail with a helo for Task Group exercises, but not always.

So, our demand for ships at sea could be a lot higher than our demand for embarked helos. For example, we could have 4 CPFs and a JSS at sea from the East coast alone, 2 of which are down off the US coast participating in a TGEX, 1 CPF doing trials with the JSS off of Halifax, and 1 on deployment. In this scenario, it's very possible that only the deployed CPF has a helo.

In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:

"The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."

The current reality for det availability unfortunately doesn't match demand, even given that the RCN is currently stretched as well.  You would like to have dets on, for example, the TGEX.  Those don't count towards the 1 in 4 deployed.  As a matter of fact, it is also important for the Wing; part of force generation is embarked training, ie participating in exercises.  But lately manning hasn't allowed what would be liked.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1129 on: August 28, 2018, 12:52:12 »
That is correct, they will embark with a CCG helo for the 4 months in the Arctic. However they will be embarking other places as well.

Hopefully I'm not taking up to much of the conversation...

That is what the combined RCAF and RCN helo allocation committee is for; to determine which ships *need* dets for ops, and which ones can *provide* dets with good training opportunities, and then balance out the allocation correctly.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 274
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1130 on: August 28, 2018, 12:58:24 »
You're forgetting the Harry DeWolf class that has the capability of embarking a Cyclone.

I didn't forget them, I just remember being told previously on the AOPS thread that the Cyclone's won't be on the AOPS's. 

I was just trying to point out that 10-12yrs ago we had a ratio of being able to deploy 60% of the Sea King's and having 40% back home doing training and maintenance.  Of course the 60% was based on the premise that the entire fleet could absorb 24 Sea King's. Going forward, I made the assumption that in 25yrs, when the last of the 15 (hopefully) CSC's are built, we'd keep the same ratio, 60%.  If we have 2 Cyclones per JSS and 1 per AOPS, we'd only then have 3 or 5 Cyclone's (depending if 5 or 6 AOPS are built) back on land doing training or deep maintenance.  Even I as a total lay person realise that this would be terrible planning.....

So, either we didn't order enough Cyclone's as previously we had 41 Sea Kings with a smaller fleet overall (meaning we didn't have 5/6 AOPS-like ships capable of taking a Cyclone/Sea King on-board or, we are sticking with the 60/40 split and there will be only 1 Cyclone per JSS and none on the AOPS's.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,977
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,059
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1131 on: August 28, 2018, 13:26:18 »
I didn't forget them, I just remember being told previously on the AOPS thread that the Cyclone's won't be on the AOPS's. 

I was just trying to point out that 10-12yrs ago we had a ratio of being able to deploy 60% of the Sea King's and having 40% back home doing training and maintenance.  Of course the 60% was based on the premise that the entire fleet could absorb 24 Sea King's. Going forward, I made the assumption that in 25yrs, when the last of the 15 (hopefully) CSC's are built, we'd keep the same ratio, 60%.  If we have 2 Cyclones per JSS and 1 per AOPS, we'd only then have 3 or 5 Cyclone's (depending if 5 or 6 AOPS are built) back on land doing training or deep maintenance.  Even I as a total lay person realise that this would be terrible planning.....

So, either we didn't order enough Cyclone's as previously we had 41 Sea Kings with a smaller fleet overall (meaning we didn't have 5/6 AOPS-like ships capable of taking a Cyclone/Sea King on-board or, we are sticking with the 60/40 split and there will be only 1 Cyclone per JSS and none on the AOPS's.

Like was already explained in multiple posts the CCG will embark while in the Arctic, other than that in other areas the Cyclone could be operated and probably will and not all deployments warrant a Cyclone. As for the number of Cyclones purchased and their use I would say that was factored into the planning process so rest easy.
"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

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1132 on: August 28, 2018, 13:28:24 »
I didn't forget them, I just remember being told previously on the AOPS thread that the Cyclone's won't be on the AOPS's. 

I was just trying to point out that 10-12yrs ago we had a ratio of being able to deploy 60% of the Sea King's and having 40% back home doing training and maintenance.  Of course the 60% was based on the premise that the entire fleet could absorb 24 Sea King's. Going forward, I made the assumption that in 25yrs, when the last of the 15 (hopefully) CSC's are built, we'd keep the same ratio, 60%.  If we have 2 Cyclones per JSS and 1 per AOPS, we'd only then have 3 or 5 Cyclone's (depending if 5 or 6 AOPS are built) back on land doing training or deep maintenance.  Even I as a total lay person realise that this would be terrible planning.....

So, either we didn't order enough Cyclone's as previously we had 41 Sea Kings with a smaller fleet overall (meaning we didn't have 5/6 AOPS-like ships capable of taking a Cyclone/Sea King on-board or, we are sticking with the 60/40 split and there will be only 1 Cyclone per JSS and none on the AOPS's.

Again, not the best comparison:

When we ordered 41 Sea Kings, it wasn't to meet the current deployment conops.  Remember, at the time, we had an aircraft carrier and were also developing flying big helicopters off little ships.

A good time snap would be when I first joined 423, at he beginning of '93.  Although we were revering from op friction, we had *approximately* this org:
- at 423, on the east coast, 5 steamer dets, 1 2 helo 280 det, and one 2 helo tanker det
- at 443, on the west coast, 1 steamer sdet, 1 2 helo 280 det, and one 2 helo tanker det
That's pretty close to the planned force structure; only difference is there will be less dets east (4+1+1) and more west (3+1+1).

So, 14 helos in dets, and there were *around* 32 left (using http://www.rwrwalker.ca/CAF_Sea_King_detailed_list.htm); we lost a few more after that.

It was also anticipated that the new aircraft would need less deep maintenance, and in fact the Cyclone maintenance requirements were spec'd for that.  Time will tell...

Leadmark 2050 explains that the RCN's ambition is to provide on high readiness task group, consisting of  1 CSC, 2 or 3 Halifax, 1 Protecteur / Provider, several CH-148, and 1 Victoria (Canada in a New Maritime World LEADMARK 2050, Page 43 http://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/rcn_leadmark-2050.pdf).  Of those, you could expect sustained 1 ship deployed and 1 going or coming back.  So the basic structure that 12 Wing org is based on is still correct.

The Harry DeWolfs through a slight curve ball, but that is were balancing of needs comes in.

So no planning mistake, the basic structure on both sides remains sound.  Unless attrition jumps up and bites...


Edditted to add: or, put more simply, what Chief Stoker said...

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,645
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1133 on: August 28, 2018, 13:46:58 »
Contracting out helicopter services for the Astreix would alleviate some of the demand on the helo's as well. Contracted helo does personal and cargo. If they have a Cyclone aboard it can provide some protection or do boarding party support, etc.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1134 on: August 28, 2018, 13:49:05 »
Contracting out helicopter services for the Astreix would alleviate some of the demand on the helo's as well. Contracted helo does personal and cargo. If they have a Cyclone aboard it can provide some protection or do boarding party support, etc.

Other nations will also do similar, but contracted out from a local airport.  So, for example, if deployed in the Persian Gulf, have a contracted helo in Bahrain to do HDS (Helicopter Delivery Service).

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,645
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1135 on: August 28, 2018, 13:57:45 »
I understood both the RFA and the USN use contracted helicopters based on their vessels?

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1136 on: August 28, 2018, 14:04:22 »
I understood both the RFA and the USN use contracted helicopters based on their vessels?

They may well do, but I've never saw it.  I do know people who have been exchange officers on board RN Sea King dets on RFAs.  All the USNS (auxiliaries are not USN) I saw where either CH-46 Sea Knights or SH-60s.

But definitely I've seen that the USN uses contracted helos from ashore in the Persion Gulf.  The used to have Sea King dets for that (the example I saw were Italy and the Gulf).

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1137 on: August 28, 2018, 14:12:37 »
Mods: perhaps move this into the CH-148 thread?

Online Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 24,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 973
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1138 on: August 28, 2018, 14:19:47 »
@Baz:  How many flight crews per det?  Or is the det number flexible (Ie: AOR might take one det but its larger compared to a CPF....).  So for example you said earlier that there are 8 flight crew pers per det, which means two flight crews total (two in the front and two in the back).  Or am I getting this mixed up.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1139 on: August 28, 2018, 14:23:32 »
@Baz:  How many flight crews per det?  Or is the det number flexible (Ie: AOR might take one det but its larger compared to a CPF....).  So for example you said earlier that there are 8 flight crew pers per det, which means two flight crews total (two in the front and two in the back).  Or am I getting this mixed up.

A "normal" det is two crews so 8 aircrew (2 pilots, 1 ACSO, and 1 AESOP per crew).

A 280 det was normally 3 crews if they sailed with 2 helos; if one helo it was a "normal" det.

A tanker det could have 1-3 helos, and as low as 1 crew plus an LSO (which is a pilot), or as high as 4 crews.

When I say 15 det equivalents in 11 dets, the four dets that have 2 helos would have 3 crews normally.

All of this is subject to mission tailoring, but "normal" dets normally stay normal.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 465,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,843
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1140 on: August 28, 2018, 16:25:40 »
ACSO- Advanced Coffee System Operator.
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 Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1141 on: August 28, 2018, 17:43:07 »
ACSO- Advanced Coffee System Operator.

As I don't drink the stuff I never made it for anyone else... I'm not sure I even know how.  I prefer 200lbs of self loading baggage, thank you very much!
« Last Edit: August 28, 2018, 18:11:12 by Baz »

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 465,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,843
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1142 on: August 28, 2018, 18:05:23 »
Well, it's not as if you can trust a pilot with complex technology like a Keurig, after all...
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 Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,235
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1143 on: August 29, 2018, 08:04:47 »
I understood both the RFA and the USN use contracted helicopters based on their vessels?

Erickson Helicopters has a contract with the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command to supply embarked AS330 Puma Helicopters on a number of T-KAE and other USNS replenishment vessels.  A friend of mine is a retired-USN bos’n now a civilian mate on a T-KAE and the Pumas are in integral part of the Ship’s VERTREP capability.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,645
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1144 on: August 30, 2018, 15:55:02 »

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,785
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1145 on: August 30, 2018, 16:16:27 »
What the heck....

Hand all the tankers, auxilliary support and Coast Guard navigation aids over to civilian companies - Federal Fleet Services, CHC, Provincial Airlines,  NavCan.

Unless there are missiles with launchers on board why on earth do you need people in uniform?

You could even hire IMP to put maintenance teams on ships at sea.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 488,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,407
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1146 on: August 30, 2018, 18:19:14 »
What the heck....

Hand all the tankers, auxilliary support and Coast Guard navigation aids over to civilian companies - Federal Fleet Services, CHC, Provincial Airlines,  NavCan.

Unless there are missiles with launchers on board why on earth do you need people in uniform?

You could even hire IMP to put maintenance teams on ships at sea.


Considering the capabilities of some private military contracting firms, there is some merit in that notion.

It is not, of course, without risk ...



... consider the FRA Sir Galahad which was sunk by Argentine Skyhawks during the Falklands war with the loss of 48 sailors and soldiers.
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 Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,785
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1147 on: August 30, 2018, 20:57:09 »

Considering the capabilities of some private military contracting firms, there is some merit in that notion.

It is not, of course, without risk ...



... consider the FRA Sir Galahad which was sunk by Argentine Skyhawks during the Falklands war with the loss of 48 sailors and soldiers.

With respect, I believe that was more down to The Taffs' deciding to stay warm and dry for a bit longer rather than disembarking and letting the Sir Galahad getting underway again.  I don't think it would have made much difference if the ship had been flying a Red, White or Blue Ensign or the Jolly Roger. 
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,693
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1148 on: August 30, 2018, 21:32:18 »
Erickson Helicopters has a contract with the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command to supply embarked AS330 Puma Helicopters on a number of T-KAE and other USNS replenishment vessels.  A friend of mine is a retired-USN bos’n now a civilian mate on a T-KAE and the Pumas are in integral part of the Ship’s VERTREP capability.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Just a minor correction, G2G: It's T-AKE, not T-KAE.  ;D

The "T-" indicates that the ship is operated by the Military Sealift Command (hence, by civilians), while the AKE is the ship's type designator, indicating a "advanced dry cargo ship" as the type.


Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,785
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1149 on: August 30, 2018, 21:54:51 »

Considering the capabilities of some private military contracting firms, there is some merit in that notion.

It is not, of course, without risk ...



... consider the FRA Sir Galahad which was sunk by Argentine Skyhawks during the Falklands war with the loss of 48 sailors and soldiers.

Further to the discussion of civilian support -



Quote
A Call To Serve

Trevor Lane was helping to paint his neighbor's house when the news came over the
radio that Argentina had occupied the Falklands.
  He had been with P&O for eight years
and had risen to navigator on CANBERRA.
  He was now home on leave while the ship
completed her annual world cruise.  "I almost instinctively knew that that was going to
affect me."
Lane knew that in times of war, the government had authority to requisition merchant
ships and had seen Royal Navy personnel coming on board CANBERRA from
time-to-time for inspections and to see how the ship operated.  Thus, it was apparent
that CANBERRA was part of the Royal Navy's contingency planning.

Although the navigator who was on CANBERRA at the moment was senior to Lane,
Lane had been with CANBERRA since he had been a cadet.  "I was part of the
establishment, if you like, on the CANBERRA."  Furthermore, his colleague was just
completing a lengthy world cruise.  If Lane did not relieve him, his friend would have to
continue on with the ship.  Moreover, the town in which Lane lived along the south
coast of England was known as "P&O Village" because so many P&O officers and
employees lived there. It would have been difficult to show his face at the local pub, if
he did not volunteer.  Thus, when the personnel department called, Lane agreed to go.

"Military personnel joined the ship in Gibraltar and they were already making plans
aboard the ship.  When they got to Southampton and discharged the passengers, an
amazing refit that took place, which implied that they had plans in place to convert the
ship very quickly.  They cut off large parts of it and built three helicopter decks in three
days.
  They took things like cocktail bars in the forward end of the ship and put
scaffolding jacks throughout the bar [to act as pillars to support the weight.] Then they
extended the deck above it and took down all the rails and that became the main
helicopter deck.  They took one of the main swimming pools in the middle of the ship
and put huge girders in the middle, covered that and cut down the side rails.  They had
another helicopter deck up by the funnels.  They did this fantastic conversion in three or
four days."

Although CANBERRA normally carried 1,700 passengers on a cruise, "they embarked a
whole brigade - - nearly 4,000 troops.  It was called Three Commando Brigade, and it
was made up of paratroopers, marines and some naval auxiliary staff and some RAF and
helicopter pilots."

The ship set out from England with the ship's P&O captain and a Royal Navy officer
sharing command.  Lane was not a member of the Royal Navy Reserve and thus
technically, he was only under the command of the civilian captain.  However, the navy
wanted direct authority over the ship's navigator.  P&O did not want to cede full
authority.  "They ended up giving me Royal Navy stripes on one shoulder and regular
merchant navy stripes on the other.  That was the compromise."

http://beyondships.com/PO-Canberra-Falklands.html

And not to forget Atlantic Conveyor and the Norland - all civilian crews - all exposed to enemy fire.   The RFA were at least hired with the expectation that they could be bombed.



« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 21:58:44 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019