Author Topic: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)  (Read 600786 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,856
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #975 on: April 03, 2015, 19:05:28 »
Meanwhile - Whatever happened to the Joint Support Ship?

Here's the Karel Doorman - Follow the link for a video tour by a member of her crew (in Dutch) https://youtu.be/MQ45uLk667Q

Here's the link to the Marine Schepen article http://marineschepen.nl/schepen/jss.html  (the article is also in Dutch but I google translated it)

400,000,000 Euros for a flaming great floating island that you can do with as you will......
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,912
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #976 on: April 13, 2015, 17:25:16 »
and she has already conducted her first mission

Even though Karel Doorman had just finished sea trials and had not yet been commissioned, on 6 November she was sent on a three-month deployment to West Africa to deliver aid to Ebola-struck countries. She was loaded with different goods in 91 containers and 155 vehicles, including ambulances. On 18 November the ship arrived in Freetown, Sierra Leone for her first offload. After her third offload in Liberia and the replenishment of RFA Argus the ship returned to the Netherlands to pick up another load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Doorman-class_support_ship

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 500
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #977 on: May 28, 2015, 20:29:30 »
How the hell did we miss this!??!?!?!?

And some Breakfast Television Video's of the ship for those of us who are ne parlez francais good  :-[ (ce dommage).

http://www.btmontreal.ca/videos/4261943231001/

http://www.btmontreal.ca/videos/4261943194001/

http://www.btmontreal.ca/videos/4262029201001/

And the ship tracker.

It's almost as if they are rubbing our noses in it.... lol!
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 20:34:53 by Underway »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,912
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #978 on: May 29, 2015, 12:04:20 »
or subtly suggesting we get them to build one for us

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 55,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,613
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #979 on: May 29, 2015, 12:10:03 »
The Dutch, intelligently, had most of the metal-bashing done in Romania:
http://navaltoday.com/2013/07/25/hnlms-karel-doorman-departs-romania/



Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,087
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #980 on: May 29, 2015, 15:27:30 »
And then there is this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CTV News:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-slams-conservatives-over-lack-of-decision-on-naval-supply-ship-1.2395503
Quote

NDP slams Conservatives over lack of decision on naval supply ship

CTVNews.ca Staff

Published Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:31PM EDT

The NDP is accusing the Conservative government of failing to ensure the Canadian Forces have the equipment they need, after it was revealed that cabinet yet again avoided making a decision on whether to convert a commercial ship into a naval supply ship.

The Royal Canadian Navy has been without supply ships since the announced retirement of HMCS Preserver and its sister ship HMCS Protecteur in November 2014.

Government records show navy mechanics had at one point been combing eBay for parts in an attempt to keep Preserver on duty.

New supply ships won’t be built until at least 2020, and could be even further delayed as construction has yet to begin on the Joint Support Ship project.

Government documents show the navy has been exploring its options for filling the gap. Cabinet has considered employing a vessel from an allied navy or leasing a converted commercial ship, but decided further study is needed before choosing either.

NDP MP Jack Harris said during question period on Thursday that the failure to make a decision is evidence the government’s military procurement strategy has failed.

“These Conservative delays threaten shipbuilding jobs and prevent our military from getting needed equipment,” Harris said. “How can the minister allow these unacceptable delays to multiply?

Defence Minister Jason Kenney responded by pointing out that his government had acquired new equipment, including C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft and Chinook helicopters, and launched “the single largest peacetime shipbuilding program in (Canadian) history.”

Kenney vowed to “ensure that the Royal Navy of Canada has the necessary equipment, including resupply ships,” and added, “if the NDP was in charge, there would be no new equipment for soldiers.”


My guess is that revenues are less than anticipated even a few months ago and the prime minister sees a need for even more spending that directly benefits "Joe Sixpack" in suburban Toronto. No one doubts that the Navy needs supply ships but the overarching political priority is that, in late August or early September, just before the writs are dropped for the 2015 election, I expect Joe Oliver to stand up and remind us of just how much money the government is pouring into the pockets of married, 35+ year old suburbanites and he will tell us that the budget is still balanced ... no deficit. Nothing can be spent that might jeopardise that statement.
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 Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 500
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #981 on: May 29, 2015, 15:56:10 »
My guess is that they are waiting for the right time to announce it, so they can have the maximum impact on Quebec voters as the work will most likely be done at Davies.  But either way ERC it a political decision.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 500
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #982 on: June 01, 2015, 11:18:46 »
Older article on the Bonn when she visited Canada.  What I found interesting is that she is considered a different ship than the Berlin Class, at the least a 2.0 version by the looks of things. Some of the article relative to ship characteristics quoted below:

Quote
Officially, Bonn is the third ship of the Type 702 Berlin-class. However, the presentation made during the second-day’s seminar was focused on the many significant differences between Bonn and her two sisters, Berlin and Fankfurt-am-Mein. The primary one relates to the concept of employment that required significant change to the propulsion system. The ship’s combat officer briefed that the first two ships were envisioned as external support components to a naval task group whereas Bonn is designed as an integral part of the group. This is consistent with the Canadian task group concept.
 
In total, the changes make Bonn so different that she represents a new class of ship. Thomas Ruckert, vice president for sales with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (GmbH), has confirmed that, “Bonn is the MOTS baseline for the Canadian JSS developed by TKMS Canada.” This is a key point because the design for Berlin is a significantly less capable ship than Bonn.
 
The primary change to enable the new concept of employment resulted in the main engines of Bonn being upgraded to two MTU 20V 8000 M41R diesels from the two MAN 12V 32/40s used previously. The original arrangement limited sustained high power usage and placed very significant restrictions on sudden changes or application of astern power, and on ship manoeuvring while at high speed. The new engines provide 35 percent more power and are more robustly connected to the gearing and shaft lines.
 
This provides complete freedom to use the engines in demanding tactical settings and makes Bonn very capable of keeping station with a group of warships. The manoeuvrability of the ship has also been enhanced by a revised placement of twin rudders directly aft of the screws, which are equipped with controllable-pitch blades.
 
An added benefit of the new engines is improved fuel economy. According to the briefing, the MTU diesels are “significantly more efficient.” In addition, the new power train allows for the trailing of one screw and this configuration results in 43 percent higher fuel-efficiency than in normal twin-shaft operation. This provision will go a long way to conserving cargo fuel, as Bonn carries significantly less fuel than the Protecteur-class; as much as 35 percent, depending on the source and conversion factors used.
 
The reduction in fuel capacity is offset by the gains made in multi-role configuration and additional containerized cargo-carrying capacity. Bonn can carry 78 containers as deck cargo and is capable of self-unloading, which makes her enormously versatile when dockside services are not available. In remote locations or where either conflict or natural disasters have damaged shore facilities, this will be an invaluable function.
 
Additionally, Bonn can embark a set of 23 pre-outfitted containers that stack three-high before the after deckhouse, forming a medical facility. This augments the ship’s medical capability to what is known in NATO terms as Level 2 ‘plus’. It includes two operating theatres and independent power for complete autonomy and reliability. The ship also has facilities to embark a group commander and staff for the operational control of tactical units. All of these capabilities would have been enormously valuable during Operation Hestia, the Canadian disaster relief effort in Haiti.
 
In short, there are a lot of different functions packed into this ship.
 
During an interview, Captain Laue said of Bonn, “It was a originally a kind of merchant design but [was] changed for the military.” In particular, her twin-engine propulsion will provide greater reliability than the single-engine arrangement used in earlier Canadian sustainment ships. The recent fire in HMCS Protecteur has demonstrated the vulnerability of that approach. However, some of the limitations of using a converted merchant vessel for military service are also evident. The bridge, main machinery control room and operations room are all closely co-located on the same deck, which presents a major risk in the event of a fire or other calamity. Also, the magazine spaces are situated quite high in the hull, likely overtop of the fuel tanks. The normal arrangement in Canadian practice would be to place them below the waterline.
 
Lieutenant-Commander Bruno Tremblay was quoted in a media report as saying Canadian derivatives of Bonn won’t be identical to her. My sources are telling me that the list of changes to the German version is already well over 100 items. Design change is one of the key areas that affect cost increases. Conversion from European-standard power to North American-standard for 120-volt service will make local appliances and equipment usable without the nuisance of converters.
 
However, if more significant things, like the relocation of the machinery control room and operations room, are contemplated then major increases in cost are almost certain to develop, making the option for a third ship less likely. Because of the reduced fuel capacity and multi-role utility of the ship, accepting less-than-desirable physical arrangements may be necessary to keep the option of getting a third ship viable. This is critically important to ensure the navy has operational sustainment where and when it is needed. Two ships cannot provide this and makes the effect of an accident or operational loss of one of them dramatically worse.
 
FGS Bonn represents a new chapter in the developmental history of the Royal Canadian Navy. She will bring many new capabilities that will make the navy much more capable and relevant in the wider scope of global maritime security operations. As Thomas Ruckert told me, “The Canadian navy will experience the same quality in German engineering as people in North America have come to know from owning German cars. Once you have had that, you will never want to go back to anything else.”

Its interesting to see how what on the surface looks like a simple purchase, with a slight change in the usage philosophy changes aspects of the ships design so significantly.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,219
  • Freespeecher
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #983 on: June 01, 2015, 12:29:12 »
Even the Turks are getting into the game, with a ship of their own:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/turkey-completing-26000-ton-amphibious.html

Quote
Turkey completing a 26000 ton amphibious assault helicopter carrier in 2021

The Turkish government announced it signed a nearly $ 1 billion deal with a local shipyard to produce the country's first Landing Platform Dock (LPD).
 
The planned amphibious assault vessel will carry a battalion-sized unit of 1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters, three unmanned aerial vehicles and transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks. It also will have an aircraft platform for vertical take off and landing. A ski jump at the front of the deck can be used to launch fighter aircraft.
 
Industry sources estimate the cost of the contract at close to $1 billion.
 
SSM said the 231-meter-long vessel will be completed by 2021. The LPD will deploy on the Aegean, the Black, and the Mediterranean seas, as well as on Turkish Navy's operations on the Atlantic and Indian oceans.
 
Turkey will be the third operator in the world of this ship type after Spain and Australia.
 
The $1 billion deal to cooperate with Spanish shipbuilder Navantia to build a Juan Carlos I-class light aircraft carrier. Here's what we know about it.
 
Stretching 758 feet in length, and weighing 26,000 tons, the Juan Carlos is the largest naval warship ever built in Spain. Once Turkey gets its copy, it will outweigh the next-largest Turkish warship by a whopping seven times
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #984 on: June 01, 2015, 14:02:16 »
Turkey should consider buying one or both French ships ordered by Russia... Throw in a few dymo guns for label changes & they should be good to go
Chimo!

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,332
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,705
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #985 on: June 23, 2015, 10:45:29 »


Defence Minister Jason Kenney to make an important announcement at National Defence Headquarters

June 23, 2015

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Jason Kenney will make an important announcement at National Defence Headquarters on June 23, 2015.

What: Supporting Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy

When: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. (EST)

Where: National Defence Headquarters – Multimedia Room, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=990419&tp=3

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 187,067
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,751
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #986 on: June 23, 2015, 11:02:50 »

Defence Minister Jason Kenney to make an important announcement at National Defence Headquarters

What part of the uniform is being changed this time?

Offline Privateer

    Looking for the bubble.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 18,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 334
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #987 on: June 23, 2015, 12:10:26 »
Jason Kenney to announce temporary naval supply ship for Davie shipyard

Per CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jason-kenney-to-announce-temporary-naval-supply-ship-for-davie-shipyard-1.3124221

Quote
CBC News has learned that Defence Minister Jason Kenney will announce today a plan for Quebec's Davie shipyard to retrofit a commercial tanker to serve as a temporary naval supply ship.

CBCNews.ca will livestream his announcement at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa starting at 1 p.m. ET.

The move is necessary because existing supply ships were forced into early retirement. The government's decade-long plan to purchase new supply ships is still in the design phase and construction has not yet begun.

Last month, the Navy bid farewell to the HMCS Protecteur at a ceremony at CFB Esquimalt in British Columbia.

The event marked almost 46 years of military service for the Canadian navy supply ship, including the Cold War, Gulf War and hurricane relief.

Protecteur retired after a devastating engine-room fire in 2014, which left the ship burning, powerless and adrift off Hawaii for 11 hours. It was towed to Pearl Harbor, then towed back to its home port of Esquimalt, B.C.

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,190
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #988 on: June 23, 2015, 14:08:22 »
I am a cynical *******, but it would not surprise me if this temporary supply ship doesn't hit the water until after we take possession of the new vessels.

On a more logical note, doesn't the USN have a few vessels laying around that are already supply ships?  Why aren't we barking up that tree?

Offline Privateer

    Looking for the bubble.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 18,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 334
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #989 on: June 23, 2015, 14:21:37 »
On a more logical note, doesn't the USN have a few vessels laying around that are already supply ships?  Why aren't we barking up that tree?

Election in 4 months... Quebec vote... stemming the Orange flood...

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,467
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #990 on: June 23, 2015, 15:36:21 »
Here, in the government's words ....
Quote
Government Announces Way Forward on Interim Supply Ship Capability

June 23, 2015

OTTAWA – The Government of Canada will enter into preliminary discussions with Chantier Davie Canada Incorporated to pursue an interim supply ship capability, Defence Minister Jason Kenney announced today.

These discussions with Chantier Davie will help determine if it can provide an interim solution at a cost, time, and level of capability acceptable to Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). Should the Government of Canada decide to pursue a provision of service contract agreement, it would provide the required standard of service to bridge the gap until the first Joint Support Ship (JSS) is anticipated to be operational, in 2021.

The JSS will be a robust warfighting capability with all military crewing and contain the capacity to be continuously upgraded over the next 30 to 40 years to meet with the Navy’s evolving operational requirements. An interim supply ship would provide a more modest capability and would not conduct full-spectrum military operations in high-threat environments.

Quick Facts

    The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) relies on the capability provided by Auxiliary Oil Replenishment ships (AORs) to supply fuel, ammunition, water, spare parts and food to individual ships or naval task groups, as well as to support task group helicopters.

    In order to assist the RCN to meet their missions over the next several years, the Government of Canada has decided to enter into preliminary discussions with Chantier Davie Canada Inc.

    The discussions would be to pursue an interim capability for a commercial ship to be refitted for military use.

    The objective is to provide an at-sea replenishment service to RCN. This is directly linked to the Canadian Armed Forces operational readiness in support of national security and the fulfillment of Canada’s national and international obligations. It could also add significant additional capabilities, such as medical and aviation support and enhanced command and control.

    An interim AOR ship will help sailors acquire and retain key skill sets needed to operate Queenston-class JSS once they are delivered.

Quotes

    “Our government is committed to ensuring the Royal Canadian Navy has the tools it needs to defend Canadian waters and take part in international missions. An interim supply-ship capability will allow the RCN to operate more freely around the world while also keeping our crews’ skills up to date in anticipation of the arrival of the more robust Joint Support Ship.”
    The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of National Defence
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,330
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #991 on: June 23, 2015, 15:50:51 »
I am a cynical *******, but it would not surprise me if this temporary supply ship doesn't hit the water until after we take possession of the new vessels.

On a more logical note, doesn't the USN have a few vessels laying around that are already supply ships?  Why aren't we barking up that tree?
The Supply Class of AOR's are far far to large and costly for our needs. If there are a couple of Kaisers available for rent then we are talking!

Offline Privateer

    Looking for the bubble.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 18,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 334
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #992 on: June 23, 2015, 16:27:12 »
"... enter into preliminary discussions... to pursue..."

"...help determine if it can provide an interim solution..."

phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,467
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #993 on: June 23, 2015, 16:35:45 »
"... enter into preliminary discussions... to pursue..."

"...help determine if it can provide an interim solution..."

phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht
As they say on Twitter - #buzzwordbingo
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 11,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #994 on: June 23, 2015, 17:02:12 »
Except that it would be an illegal single source contract which other yards that also didn't get the NSPS could do as well, and take a year or two to complete, plus need a trained crew, which doesn't exist, and we would have to make from scratch from somewhere. ??? :facepalm:

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 500
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #995 on: June 23, 2015, 19:38:05 »
Except that it would be an illegal single source contract which other yards that also didn't get the NSPS could do as well, and take a year or two to complete, plus need a trained crew, which doesn't exist, and we would have to make from scratch from somewhere. ??? :facepalm:

Emergency operational requirement + election + no one will argue against pork barreling in Quebec = ignore procurement rules.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 11,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #996 on: June 23, 2015, 20:05:42 »
Except there is no emergency operational requirement that can't be met faster by simply leasing an oiler to be on site to support specific operations.

All they announced is that they 'engaged in talks' with Davie, not that they've commited to anything.  This is a cynical and cheap vote winning operation, not any sign of real support.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,087
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #997 on: June 24, 2015, 06:58:25 »
There is discussion in the media about possibly converting an existing commercial cargo ship to an AOR. (The discussion also posits that the AOR project (Berlin class, is that right?) is in trouble.)

My question is, political posturing aside: why not?

I couldn't find much discussion that I could understand, except this. A bit of further reading (caution Wikipedia as a source) suggests that "HMAS Sirius (O 266) (formerly MT Delos) is a commercial tanker purchased by the Royal Australian Navy and converted into a fleet replenishment vessel to replace HMAS Westralia. Launched in South Korea on 2004, and converted in Western Australia, Sirius was commissioned in 2006; three years before a purpose-built vessel would have, and at half the cost. The tanker is expected to remain in service until the 2020s."



Can the Navy engineers (and associated experts) tell this simple soldier: why not?

     (I do recall the saga(s) of the commercial trucks in the Army; in fact, I was, peripherally, involved in the 1¼ ton truck project and I heard, direct from the horse's mouth, as it were, why the late Gen Jacques Dextraze wanted to explore
      COTS vehicles. (That story changed, in some details, but not in substance, every time he told it!))

I'm not advocating, just asking ... because I suspect that some senior bureaucrats and politicians are asking: isn't, say, 85% of the requirement for 50% of the budget a "good deal?"
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 jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,472
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,525
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #998 on: June 24, 2015, 08:10:06 »
ER, there is no practical reason why it could not happen.  I have said for years that if we were smart, we would buy COT overseas as yards such as Hyundai can give you a turn key vessel in a very short time.  Barring that solution, if there was a suitable candidate available either commercial or ex-military available... certainly it could and I believe, should be done.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 107,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #999 on: June 24, 2015, 09:19:46 »
ER,

Having served on Canadian Tankers a few times in my career, there is no reason you could not convert a civian tanker, with a couple of caveats:

- for better or worse, we have tended to treat our AORs as fighting units. You won't get that capability in a convert, for very good engineering and damage control reasons. A convert would have to be kept very strictly out of harms way.

- your helicopter facilities are likely to be rudimentary, at best.

-you probably will lose the capability to transfer ammo at sea, as creating a magazine space would be pricey. It depends how important you think that is.

-your ability to transfer food and stores at sea might be limited, although you may be able to Gerry rig something using sea cans on deck. It would not be very efficient, however.

- the role 2/3 medical facility might be hard.

As you said- it all depends on how much value you put all of those capabilities.