Author Topic: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)  (Read 796911 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1950 on: April 12, 2018, 13:11:20 »
Is this (red circle) what you mean?

Thats it
"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 Privateer

    Looking for the bubble.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 18,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 351
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1951 on: April 12, 2018, 13:43:51 »
Is this (red circle) what you mean?

Yes.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1952 on: April 12, 2018, 15:31:51 »
 :tsktsk:  she's already losing some that new car curb appeal with tugs rubbing nasty black marks on her as well as that streak of rust from the obd.

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1953 on: April 15, 2018, 16:56:58 »
Asterix is indeed an outstanding ship.

My humble opinion: RCN should purchase the Obelix, install in both ships Phalanx systems. Acquire at the same time MRNSV, creating in that sense a Flexible Logistics Ship group. An not build JSS (only 1 RAS).

Having said that in order not to impact contract with Seaspan, upgrade Polar Icebreaker from Polar class 2+ to Polar class 1 (with Nuclear tech perhaps). Using money unspent in 2 directions: restarting Defence Research Establishment Pacific (DREP) in BC focusing on Maritime Safety i.e. New technology for safe oil tankers in BC coast and in the near future either build or upgrade an LHD from US. Both supported by Seaspan.

In that sense specialize all Shipyards. Davie in Reconversion, Seaspan in Coast Guard and Irving in Warships.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,726
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1954 on: April 15, 2018, 17:14:19 »
or... we could do what the present government is doing, which is delay and do as little as possible as slow as possible.

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1955 on: April 15, 2018, 17:48:16 »
...Future RCN:

12-15 CSC
5-6 AOPS
No more Kingston
8 Orcas (at least 4 upgraded with M2 on deck)
2 AOR (Asterix and Obelix armed with Phalanx)
1 Multi Role Naval Ship
4 Subs (2 Astute*** + 2 Victoria)
1 Possible LHD carrying on F35B's - Wasp style-

 

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,111
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1956 on: April 15, 2018, 18:25:16 »
Asterix is indeed an outstanding ship.

My humble opinion: RCN should purchase the Obelix, install in both ships Phalanx systems. Acquire at the same time MRNSV, creating in that sense a Flexible Logistics Ship group. An not build JSS (only 1 RAS).

Having said that in order not to impact contract with Seaspan, upgrade Polar Icebreaker from Polar class 2+ to Polar class 1 (with Nuclear tech perhaps). Using money unspent in 2 directions: restarting Defence Research Establishment Pacific (DREP) in BC focusing on Maritime Safety i.e. New technology for safe oil tankers in BC coast and in the near future either build or upgrade an LHD from US. Both supported by Seaspan.

In that sense specialize all Shipyards. Davie in Reconversion, Seaspan in Coast Guard and Irving in Warships.

I'm sorry but your expertise in this area is...what, precisely?

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1957 on: April 15, 2018, 18:43:57 »
I'm sorry but your expertise in this area is...what, precisely?

Excellent Question. I am a concerned citizen that wants to see CAD expended wisely...needless to say I am the grandson of a Veteran Officer -with a few tours overseas including Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) - and has spent countless hours talking about the issue with him. I thought that finally I could converse with people sharing my passion: ships, planes and strategy without asking me about my "credentials"...hence my humble opinion words.

Offline kratz

    Fall: Sweater Weather.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 253,833
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,184
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1958 on: April 15, 2018, 18:54:25 »
alexanderpeterson,

Anyone posting here is responsible for their comments. Nobody knows you here, so it should be expected that members expect you to establish yourself.

If SeaKingTacco hadn't of asked now, someone would have at some point.

They may be your humble opinions, but backing them up with links to references and acknowledging your second hand knowledge where appropriate, is part of owning the comments you post.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1959 on: April 15, 2018, 19:03:27 »
alexanderpeterson, welcome to the forums.

While the Asterix is indeed a good vessel, she is crewed by civilians and military personnel.  This, as well as her not being milspec limits where she can go and what she can do.  While we need her and her sister, we also need our PRO and PRE back with the fleet too.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1960 on: April 15, 2018, 19:07:15 »
...Future RCN:

12-15 CSC
5-6 AOPS
No more Kingston
8 Orcas (at least 4 upgraded with M2 on deck)
2 AOR (Asterix and Obelix armed with Phalanx)
1 Multi Role Naval Ship
4 Subs (2 Astute*** + 2 Victoria)
1 Possible LHD carrying on F35B's - Wasp style-

No more Kingstons? You want us to divest ourselves of one of most useful platforms in the fleet?
"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 alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1961 on: April 15, 2018, 19:12:00 »
alexanderpeterson,

Anyone posting here is responsible for their comments. Nobody knows you here, so it should be expected that members expect you to establish yourself.

If SeaKingTacco hadn't of asked now, someone would have at some point.

They may be your humble opinions, but backing them up with links to references and acknowledging your second hand knowledge where appropriate, is part of owning the comments you post.

I tried to support my comments regarding AOR, specifically Asterix and Obelix with Facts taking from other sources. Sadly they belonged to another source and after posted they were correctly deleted by Admin

I agree with you that making an objective capability comparison between Asterix Vs JSS will make a compelling case in how to spend CAD. For now, just relying in Davie info http://federalfleet.ca/2017/09/12/download-the-defsec-2017-presentation/ -   Page 15 in how JSS is not in compliance with latest NATO RAS std. ATP-16 :
2A-7 2A20 Rigs in Use by Nations...
6-11 0626 Transfer of Water...
6-18 0630 Fuel STREAM Rig...
6-18 0631 Rigging the Delivering Ship for Fuel STREAM Rig ...
6-23 0632 Passing, Tending, and Recovering the Rig...
6-24 0633 Rigging the Receiving Ship for Fuel STREAM ...
6-30 0634 Connecting and Disconnecting the Rig ...
6-30 0635 Receiving Hose Couplings Other than Probe...
6-32 0636 Precautions Against Loss of Fuel ...
6-34 0637 Blowing Through Hose Procedures ...
6-34 0640 Convoy Escort Replenishment ...6
-36 0641 Necessity for Rapid Fueling ...
6-36 0642 Fueling Course and Speed...
6-36 0643 Station Keeping ...
6-36 0644 Emergency Breakaway...
6-38 0645 Standard Fueling Equipment ...
6-38 0650 Astern Fueling by Float Method ...
6-38 0651 Equipment and Procedures for Converted Merchant Tankers...
6-38 0652 Astern Hose Cleanout System ...
6-38 0660 Astern Fueling Using the NATO 4 Fueling Rig ...
6-48 0661 Communications During Astern Refueling ...
6-48 0662 Maneuvering During Astern Refueling ...
6-48 0663 General Requirements for Astern Refueling ...6-48 0664 Rig Variations ...
6-49 0665 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Single Hose, No Automatic Winch) ...
6-49 0666 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Double or Single Hose, Automatic Winch) ...
6-51 0667 Using the Float Method...6-51 0670 Replenishment of Fuel and Water in Harbor ...
6-51 0671–0684 Nation-Specific Transfer of Liquids ...
6-52 ANNEX 6A—MERCHANT TANKER FUELING BY THE ASTERN METHOD 6A10 Introduction ...
It includes the standard requirements and procedures that have been agreed to by NATO nations. NATO nations have agreed that all practicable assistance and facilities shall be provided to warships and certain auxiliaries of the NATO navies.

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1962 on: April 15, 2018, 19:14:21 »
No more Kingstons? You want us to divest ourselves of one of most useful platforms in the fleet?

Is not the idea to replace Kingston by AOPS hence the Container deck capability to allow flexibility for Antisubmarine warfare among others?

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1963 on: April 15, 2018, 19:17:11 »
alexanderpeterson, welcome to the forums.

While the Asterix is indeed a good vessel, she is crewed by civilians and military personnel.  This, as well as her not being milspec limits where she can go and what she can do.  While we need her and her sister, we also need our PRO and PRE back with the fleet too.

Agreed.
That is what the current agreement with Federal Fleet Services was done...Can we, in the future after Lease is over and ship transfer to RCN, be able to cover all crew with own Navy personnel? Keeping Knowledge and ensuring long term Skills

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1964 on: April 15, 2018, 19:18:03 »
I tried to support my comments regarding AOR, specifically Asterix and Obelix with Facts taking from other sources. Sadly they belonged to another source and after posted they were correctly deleted by Admin

I agree with you that making an objective capability comparison between Asterix Vs JSS will make a compelling case in how to spend CAD. For now, just relying in Davie info http://federalfleet.ca/2017/09/12/download-the-defsec-2017-presentation/ -   Page 15 in how JSS is not in compliance with latest NATO RAS std. ATP-16 :
2A-7 2A20 Rigs in Use by Nations...
6-11 0626 Transfer of Water...
6-18 0630 Fuel STREAM Rig...
6-18 0631 Rigging the Delivering Ship for Fuel STREAM Rig ...
6-23 0632 Passing, Tending, and Recovering the Rig...
6-24 0633 Rigging the Receiving Ship for Fuel STREAM ...
6-30 0634 Connecting and Disconnecting the Rig ...
6-30 0635 Receiving Hose Couplings Other than Probe...
6-32 0636 Precautions Against Loss of Fuel ...
6-34 0637 Blowing Through Hose Procedures ...
6-34 0640 Convoy Escort Replenishment ...6
-36 0641 Necessity for Rapid Fueling ...
6-36 0642 Fueling Course and Speed...
6-36 0643 Station Keeping ...
6-36 0644 Emergency Breakaway...
6-38 0645 Standard Fueling Equipment ...
6-38 0650 Astern Fueling by Float Method ...
6-38 0651 Equipment and Procedures for Converted Merchant Tankers...
6-38 0652 Astern Hose Cleanout System ...
6-38 0660 Astern Fueling Using the NATO 4 Fueling Rig ...
6-48 0661 Communications During Astern Refueling ...
6-48 0662 Maneuvering During Astern Refueling ...
6-48 0663 General Requirements for Astern Refueling ...6-48 0664 Rig Variations ...
6-49 0665 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Single Hose, No Automatic Winch) ...
6-49 0666 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Double or Single Hose, Automatic Winch) ...
6-51 0667 Using the Float Method...6-51 0670 Replenishment of Fuel and Water in Harbor ...
6-51 0671–0684 Nation-Specific Transfer of Liquids ...
6-52 ANNEX 6A—MERCHANT TANKER FUELING BY THE ASTERN METHOD 6A10 Introduction ...
It includes the standard requirements and procedures that have been agreed to by NATO nations. NATO nations have agreed that all practicable assistance and facilities shall be provided to warships and certain auxiliaries of the NATO navies.

Don't believe everything you read on Federal Fleets page. Asterix has one main engine and one shaft line to JSS's two and Asterix has a decade old hull being reused. It fills our immediate requirements now.
"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 Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1965 on: April 15, 2018, 19:20:19 »
Is not the idea to replace Kingston by AOPS hence the Container deck capability to allow flexibility for Antisubmarine warfare among others?

No its not, Kingston class will still be doing the same thing in conjunction with Harry DeWolf. What antisubmarine warfare are you talking about?
"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 alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1966 on: April 15, 2018, 19:31:55 »
What antisubmarine warfare are you talking about?

The one performed by Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone and the Containerized version of  the deep sea Thales MMS mechanical mine sweeping system, the route survey system or the Sutec remotely operated vehicle (ROV) mine inspection system.

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1967 on: April 15, 2018, 19:36:49 »
Don't believe everything you read on Federal Fleets page. Asterix has one main engine and one shaft line to JSS's two and Asterix has a decade old hull being reused. It fills our immediate requirements now.

I would like to see 2 RAS instead of 1 on JSS...remember the original design by BMT?  Also the TAG price for each JSS ship is a little much, don't you think?   The "original" Asterix shape was a nice ship to the eye

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1968 on: April 15, 2018, 19:40:41 »
The one performed by Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone and the Containerized version of  the deep sea Thales MMS mechanical mine sweeping system, the route survey system or the Sutec remotely operated vehicle (ROV) mine inspection system.

The Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone won't be embarked in the Arctic, a CCG helo will be doing that and there is no room for storage of anti sub torpedoes onboard. The Thales system has been gone for some years now. We still have route survey and actually Harry Dewolf won't be using that but they will be using a multi echo mapping payload for hydrographic work. As for the other mine warfare payloads, the class doesn't have degausing unlike the Kingston Class.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 19:45:39 by Chief Stoker »
"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 Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1969 on: April 15, 2018, 19:51:12 »
I would like to see 2 RAS instead of 1 on JSS...remember the original design by BMT?  Also the TAG price for each JSS ship is a little much, don't you think?   The "original" Asterix shape was a nice ship to the eye

It actually has 4 RAS stations to 2 on the PROTECTEUR Class. This means no port and stbd duel RAS. Its a nice to have but seems to have not caused us any heartache over the years. The price is the price for a purpose built AOR that's actually new. I agree that it brings exciting capability but again there's a reason why we're only renting it.
"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: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1970 on: April 15, 2018, 20:29:56 »
Agreed.
That is what the current agreement with Federal Fleet Services was done...Can we, in the future after Lease is over and ship transfer to RCN, be able to cover all crew with own Navy personnel? Keeping Knowledge and ensuring long term Skills

No.  One glaring mistake is that no one is keeping the role my legacy trade did alive with the Asterix.  As a HT we were the custodians of the cargo fuel it was our job to see that it came on board from the refinery or other source, was taken care of while on board and delivered to our fleet during RAS and alongside fuellings.  This function is being done by the civilian crew and all of what is now Mar Tech territory for that matter.  Those of us who were Tanker Wankers are leaving and that knowledge leaves with us.  A fail.  In my opinion.

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1971 on: April 15, 2018, 21:10:22 »
Resolve Class AOR

Cons: One Main Engine, One Main Shaft, Old Hull, No Phalanx*, Civilian Crew, No Compartmentalized???
Pros: Interim measure, Lower Cost, 4 RAS, Nice shape (at least original Asterix Design)

Berlin Class Modified (V 3.0)

Cons: COST, Old design, 2 RAS, Not so nice shape  ;D (nothing bad about having an old merchant ship look), Lead Time, we can lay waste an opportunity to have a "real" JSS like Karel Doorman or an Amphibious Ship for that cost,
Pros: Permanent Measure, Redundancy, real AOR design, New Canadian Ship - not lease-, AA fitted, RCN Personnel (all trades  ???)

It seems to me that there could be a lost one time generation chance to have built a next gen Navy...sorry to be reiterative but 20 years ago this started as a truly JSS and we are having a great AOR...what you all think?

Offline alexanderpeterson

  • New Member
  • **
  • 465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1972 on: April 15, 2018, 21:14:02 »
On the previous reply I have attached a pic comparison between Original Asterix Design and as - built ship. The original one appears more modern Aegis like ship

Offline serger989

  • New Member
  • **
  • 690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 26
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1973 on: April 16, 2018, 00:20:09 »
Resolve Class AOR

Cons: One Main Engine, One Main Shaft, Old Hull, No Phalanx*, Civilian Crew, No Compartmentalized???
Pros: Interim measure, Lower Cost, 4 RAS, Nice shape (at least original Asterix Design)

Berlin Class Modified (V 3.0)

Cons: COST, Old design, 2 RAS, Not so nice shape  ;D (nothing bad about having an old merchant ship look), Lead Time, we can lay waste an opportunity to have a "real" JSS like Karel Doorman or an Amphibious Ship for that cost,
Pros: Permanent Measure, Redundancy, real AOR design, New Canadian Ship - not lease-, AA fitted, RCN Personnel (all trades  ???)

It seems to me that there could be a lost one time generation chance to have built a next gen Navy...sorry to be reiterative but 20 years ago this started as a truly JSS and we are having a great AOR...what you all think?

The Karel Doorman is my favourite Joint Support Ship... I wish we had 2-3 of those :P For how Canada would use them, we would never even need to look in the direction of an LHD.

Offline CTD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 492
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1974 on: April 16, 2018, 01:40:56 »
I'm sorry but your expertise in this area is...what, precisely?

Lots of experts on this site. Many self proclaimed and some actual. Some people who may not be directly involved might know something another person may not have thought of. Or they may stir up thoughts outside the box.

I remember a few years ago people jumping all over me about the Bell CH-146 Griffon and not being able to deploy it to Afghanistan. The so called experts claimed no way no how could that helicopter be used in the conditions it would be subjected to
It was used and it did a decent job. Not ideal but it was used.

So when you question a persons expertise on a subject you should explain yours.
There are far to many experts. Some may have direct, indirect or none at all knowledge of what is going on.

As for people saying how bad it is to have lost the Military side of AOR fleet. Look at the US Military, very few of their AORs are staffed by full Military crews, they seem to work pretty well.