Author Topic: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)  (Read 835411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,969
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2200 on: March 07, 2019, 22:07:09 »
What’s with all this craziness with four RAS rigs?
Did I miss something here? I thought the plan was rent 1, build 2, then cease renting. I’m not getting where the 2 (+2) is coming from?
Living the lean life.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,312
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,945
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2201 on: March 07, 2019, 22:32:29 »
Did I miss something here? I thought the plan was rent 1, build 2, then cease renting. I’m not getting where the 2 (+2) is coming from?

That still is the plan, many on here however want 4 AOR's.
"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 Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,243
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2202 on: March 07, 2019, 23:16:24 »
Because 2 more AOR's mean less button and bows and since their are civy run ships, no fancy Mess parties. It shows that the testicle clamps are firmly on when the Navy spokesperson says "oh one is enough"..... ::)

As I said before the Libs are stupid on this issue, 4 AOR's along with our C-17/C130J's would give Canada huge scope to assist our allies in a low risk manner and then they could despatch one as a disaster relief vessel resulting in major photops and feel goods, all of which will warm a Liberal politician heart. It would also help the Davie issue to go away, we give you a contract, you lay off the bad mouthing of the other shipyards. Plus they can show they care about jobs in Quebec not connected to SNC-Lavalin. Particularly if the case goes ahead. Maybe they can make that part of a deal with an Admiral Norman resolution.   

 

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,969
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2203 on: March 07, 2019, 23:41:47 »
Can we really could afford to gas up 4 AOR.  I can only see it once there are actually 15 CSC in commission along with all 6 AOP and whatever replaces MCDV (if anything). If all of that comes to fruition the RCN would have its largest surface fleet since the early 1960’s and by far it’s most capable fleet ever.
Living the lean life.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,616
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2204 on: March 07, 2019, 23:51:36 »
Can we really could afford to gas up 4 AOR?

How much do you charge to fill up a Yankee destroyer?  A Portuguese frigate?

Money making proposition.

Check the oil for you, Sir?  Do you want fries with that?   ;D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,969
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2205 on: March 07, 2019, 23:54:04 »
I suppose it’s cheap if we use Alberta oil.
Living the lean life.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,969
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2206 on: March 08, 2019, 10:22:09 »
Actually, I will float this: why are we having tankers and stores ships in the combat fleet at all? Shouldn’t this service be pushed to a fleet auxiliary force and the slots for 2 large combatants be taken up by LPD (or something like the UK Littoral Ship) * or other similar capability. Or 2 more AOPs hulls with significant ELINT capability- Make EW Great Again!!

Task the fleet auxiliary with performing the function using its own or chartered ships and hold them to account for having ships on station where the RCN instructs them to be.

That way, whether it’s 2 or 10 AOR ships is no concern to the RCN as long as they deliver to the RCN and other customers (as required).

Living the lean life.

Online LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 127
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2207 on: March 08, 2019, 13:43:05 »

As I said before the Libs are stupid on this issue, 4 AOR's along with our C-17/C130J's would give Canada huge scope to assist our allies in a low risk manner and then they could despatch one as a disaster relief vessel resulting in major photops and feel goods, all of which will warm a Liberal politician heart. It would also help the Davie issue to go away, we give you a contract, you lay off the bad mouthing of the other shipyards. Plus they can show they care about jobs in Quebec not connected to SNC-Lavalin. Particularly if the case goes ahead. Maybe they can make that part of a deal with an Admiral Norman resolution.   

 

Playing devil advocate, the conservatives, when signing for Asterix, could've added an option for 1 more, or just given a contract for 2 iAORs out the gate? Would've plugged the gap after Asterix and shut up Davie.

If they were being pragmatic, they coulda signed for 2 iAORs just before the election, and allowed a hefty cancellation fee in case they lost the election and a Liberal gov't unfriendly to Davie wanted to cancel. Would play right into a MH-Chretien comparison.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,243
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2208 on: March 08, 2019, 15:11:50 »
They were seriously considering the Mistrals as well, so likley they figured that was enough ship stuff for the moment.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,873
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2209 on: March 08, 2019, 17:30:36 »
2 per coast, which means that one is always available on each coast and if one goes overseas, there is still another to cover domestic requirements.

No, I meant somewhat ‘tongue-in-cheek’ AORs with four RAS stanchions (ASTERIX, PATIÑO, etc.) vice the two-stanchion configuration of JSS.

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 53
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2210 on: March 08, 2019, 17:46:47 »
hahaha... I thought you meant that, but the  thread went on into another track...

Well, Davie might Canadize it, if desired, by removing two of those RAS (Replenishment at sea) rigs. I guess  :)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 17:52:58 by JMCanada »

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,594
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2211 on: March 09, 2019, 07:50:53 »
I don't know why we would be abandoning the four-stations (two masts per side) set-up. It is so much more flexible as an arrangement.

I have in mind a fairly recent picture that was on the RCN web site (but can't find it right now (taken down?). It showed one of our frigate operating with the RAN. She was fuelling on the port side of the RAN current AOR (based on the French Durance class) while a RAN ANZAC class was fuelling on the starboard. Our frigate was fuelling from the  port-forward mast while the Australian ship was fuelling from the starboard-aft mast. But both warships were level on either side.

This means that the ANZAC fuelling point is much further aft than a HAL's one. Had there been single mast on either side, you either would have one of the two ships (the ANZAC) further ahead - creating unbalanced forces on the AOR, and thus an unstable situation - or would only be able to have one refuel at a time. In other words, two masts restricts you to ships with reasonably the same set-up at each time if you want to refuel on both sides. That's just one more consideration in setting up the rotation that could easily be avoided by simply having four masts. Four masts means more flexibility when working with various partners instead of just your own Navy.

Is there really a big cost increase in having four instead of two? I don't think so.
+150

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 15,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2212 on: March 09, 2019, 13:51:26 »
I have in mind a fairly recent picture that was on the RCN web site (but can't find it right now (taken down?). It showed one of our frigate operating with the RAN. She was fuelling on the port side of the RAN current AOR (based on the French Durance class) while a RAN ANZAC class was fuelling on the starboard. Our frigate was fuelling from the  port-forward mast while the Australian ship was fuelling from the starboard-aft mast. But both warships were level on either side.

Do you mean these pictures?


Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,594
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2213 on: March 09, 2019, 16:23:43 »
Them's the ones, DH. Thank you.

Look at the bottom one and mentally move the RAN frigate forward to RAS from the front rig and you can see how much further ahead of even the AOR she would stick out by and how unbalanced the various pressure zones around the AOR would then be.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 144
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2214 on: March 16, 2019, 16:05:15 »
Quote
Navy deep-sixed Conservative plan to name naval vessels after War of 1812 battles

Defence insiders say the navy didn't want ships with names that sound like 'wineries'

What's in a name? When Shakespeare asked, he was talking about romance and roses. Apparently, the question applies to naval ships as well.

A series of internal briefing notes show the Canadian navy pushed back hard against the former Conservative government's plan to name the long-delayed, yet-to-be-delivered supply ships after War of 1812 battles.

In the fall of 2017, the Liberal government quietly announced that the new joint support ships would be named HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver — a nod, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said at the time, to the recently-retired naval replenishment vessels that had refuelled and resupplied Canadian warships at sea for four decades.

Back in 2013, the government of then-prime minister Stephen Harper announced that the new ships would be named after key battles of the 1812 to 1814 conflict between the United States and Great Britain — specifically, the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of the Chateauguay, both British victories.

Internal documents show those names were dropped not because of political pressure, but due to objections from naval brass.

"Although themes drawn from the War of 1812 were deemed viable, the naming of warships after historically significant land battles has not proven to resonate well with Canadians and is not consistent with Royal Canadian Navy practice," the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, told Sajjan on Aug. 26, 2016.

Vance may have been putting it diplomatically. Naval historian Marc Milner said he heard the criticism from within the military almost immediately after the new ship names were announced.

"The navy was very upset that they would start naming warships after army victories," said the University of New Brunswick academic, wondering aloud whether the army would start naming its bases after famous admirals.

The problem was simple. The Conservatives wanted to honour the legacy of the War of 1812, a key moment in Canada's evolution from a collection of colonies to a modern nation. But very few of the naval battles between 1812 and 1814 directly involved combatants from the colonies that would someday become Canada.

Harper's government poured a lot of time and money into celebrating the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, spending roughly $28 million on public celebrations, statues and commemorations.

"At the time, it was felt that a 'battles' theme would facilitate this broader linkage" to the country's military history, said one internal memo.

'An affront'

But the names chosen for the ships — HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay — were not popular with the navy, according to multiple defence insiders who noted few combat sailors wanted replenishment ships with names that sound like "wineries."

"There's all kinds of good reasons for naming them after naval battles that we were involved in," said Milner. "But to name them after early 19th century land victories in Upper and Lower Canada was just, I think, an affront to the Navy's sense of who they were and who they wanted to be."

Capt. James Salt, the director of major naval Crown projects at the Department of National Defence, said a lot of lessons were learned during the naming exercise — something that doesn't happen all that often.

In the past, Canada has named warships — such as the new Halifax-class frigates — after rivers and major cities.

It rarely names ships after battles or individuals. The exceptions, Salt said, are the upcoming Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, which will be known collectively as the Harry DeWolf-class after a famous Second World War commander, who was later promoted to admiral.

The navy has been very careful to choose names that resonate with the public, he added.

In the 1990s, as the frigates were launched out of the country's shipyard, the idea of naming them after major cities was seen as a way to connect ordinary Canadians with the work of the navy.

And in case anyone thinks this is a debate solely for sailors, academic and history geeks, Salt said Sajjan's office is already being hit with notes from the general public suggesting names for replacement frigates — which have yet to be designed and are not due to hit the water until the mid-2020s at the earliest.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-supply-ships-war-1812-1.5057292

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2215 on: March 16, 2019, 22:47:37 »
Thanks DH. Vancouver (pictured) and Calgary were my favourite boats. That was a good trip. Success's crew were a blast ashore.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 214,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,610
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2216 on: March 17, 2019, 08:32:55 »
Them's the ones, DH. Thank you.

Look at the bottom one and mentally move the RAN frigate forward to RAS from the front rig and you can see how much further ahead of even the AOR she would stick out by and how unbalanced the various pressure zones around the AOR would then be.

If you have a minute, can you elaborate/explain the part in yellow? 
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,594
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2217 on: March 17, 2019, 11:38:32 »
Sure thing, EITS.

I guess you air types would call it turbulence.  ;D

Here goes: As they move through water, ships push water out the sides and under the hull. When two ships in parallel lines come near one another, as ship one approaches ship two and the bow come roughly level with the stern of the other ship, the resulting flow of water creates a positive pressure zone that tends to push both ships away from one another. As the bow comes level with the mid portion of the other ship, the combined forces create a suction zone, which tends to bring the bow and mid-section together. Finally as both bow become level, there is another pressure zone created that push the ships apart.

Now, as the ships go through the various phases, the combined effect affects both ships. The Frigates/destroyer drivers some times forget that because the AOR is the ship that is supposed to keep its course and speed constant while they manoeuvre in to position, but the helmsman of the AOR (and her OOW and Captain) know damn well that we are affected too. Once the ships are in position - that is they are parallel and centred on one another (as in the picture from above), steering becomes easier again, as the bow and stern of the ships are in each other's pressure zone while their mid-portion are in the suction zone and the various forces counter one another. That is why you usually want to get into position as fast as possible then stay there. The main worry then is getting too close to one another while parallel to one another, as this causes a Venturi effect that sucks both ship into one another and that suction cannot be broken until they come to full stop.

So, to get back to the situation I described from the picture, if the ANZAC class frigate was moved forward by the distance between the two RAS masts, it would stand in the forward pressure zone and suction zone  at her stern only - no equilibrium for her. But it would also similarly affect the AOR, even though to a lesser extent in view of her mass advantage.
 

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,969
Living the lean life.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,243
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2219 on: April 09, 2019, 11:29:00 »
Saab to Deliver Radars for Royal Canadian Navy's Joint Support Ships. Sea Giraffe AMB will form part of the command management system for the new ships. Saab will undertake the work in Gothenburg, Sweden and Halifax, Canada with deliveries between 2020 and 2022.



http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/2650

Offline calculus

  • Guest
  • *
  • 110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2220 on: April 09, 2019, 17:15:18 »
Saab to Deliver Radars for Royal Canadian Navy's Joint Support Ships. Sea Giraffe AMB will form part of the command management system for the new ships. Saab will undertake the work in Gothenburg, Sweden and Halifax, Canada with deliveries between 2020 and 2022.

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/2650

Is it my imagination, or is this an unusually capable radar for an AOR?

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 719
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #2221 on: April 10, 2019, 16:21:27 »
I don't know why we would be abandoning the four-stations (two masts per side) set-up. It is so much more flexible as an arrangement.

I have in mind a fairly recent picture that was on the RCN web site (but can't find it right now (taken down?). It showed one of our frigate operating with the RAN. She was fuelling on the port side of the RAN current AOR (based on the French Durance class) while a RAN ANZAC class was fuelling on the starboard. Our frigate was fuelling from the  port-forward mast while the Australian ship was fuelling from the starboard-aft mast. But both warships were level on either side.

This means that the ANZAC fuelling point is much further aft than a HAL's one. Had there been single mast on either side, you either would have one of the two ships (the ANZAC) further ahead - creating unbalanced forces on the AOR, and thus an unstable situation - or would only be able to have one refuel at a time. In other words, two masts restricts you to ships with reasonably the same set-up at each time if you want to refuel on both sides. That's just one more consideration in setting up the rotation that could easily be avoided by simply having four masts. Four masts means more flexibility when working with various partners instead of just your own Navy.

Is there really a big cost increase in having four instead of two? I don't think so.

It's also great for redundancy; there are a lot of moving parts, cables and hoses that could go wrong and take a station down. Less of a concern if you have two per side, and we've got a track record of doing the bare minimum at times to get ships to sea, so wouldn't be surprised to see a JSS leave with two 'workingish' stations and have a series of events leaving them unable to RAS. Also, our own ships have their own issues, and sometimes you head out only able to RAS on one side, so can be a challenge all around if the AOR can supply on one side.