• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
946
Points
1,060
The AOR is going to be a target. Thats guaranteed. I don't see what the alternative is-not have AOR's? Any attempt to move people and equipment by land, sea or air is going to be vulnerable and there are going to be losses and they might be huge. Just look at the losses in the Ukraine war in the first 6 months. The war seems to be at a bit of a stalemate to some extent due to people and equipment limitations
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
@Underway…just wondering if the NSM uses the same fuel as HARPOON?
No idea. I only know open source stuff on NSM and usually, that doesn't include the fuel type. I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Both use a similar propulsion method.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
99
Points
380
No idea. I only know open source stuff on NSM and usually, that doesn't include the fuel type. I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Both use a similar propulsion method.
Just an idle curiosity. I was wondering how much (or little) that magazine may have to change when HARPOON gives way to NSM. I imagine there may come a time when they may have to share the same space in transport.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
Just an idle curiosity. I was wondering how much (or little) that magazine may have to change when HARPOON gives way to NSM. I imagine there may come a time when they may have to share the same space in transport.
It won't have to change much at all. It's basically a big box with a lid and fire suppression systems inside. The racking solution will be the only thing that changes.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
Given the JSS command facilities, I would assume that Sensor Netting would be a given. I can’t find any information indicating if that is true. Any of you guys know?
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
685
Points
910
If you mean by that "will she be connected to to other ships by Link and have access to the recognized maritime picture, the the answrer is yes.

More than that , I would be surprised if anyone was at liberty to discuss.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
If you mean by that "will she be connected to to other ships by Link and have access to the recognized maritime picture, the the answrer is yes.

More than that , I would be surprised if anyone was at liberty to discuss.
The only reason i did ask is because the CSC has CEC.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
Given the JSS command facilities, I would assume that Sensor Netting would be a given. I can’t find any information indicating if that is true. Any of you guys know?
If you mean by that "will she be connected to to other ships by Link and have access to the recognized maritime picture, the the answrer is yes.

More than that , I would be surprised if anyone was at liberty to discuss.
Here is what I can tell you. Same LINK as Frigates currently have. No CEC because there are no effectors on JSS (it doesn't operate offensive weapons only self defensive ones). JSS is expected to act as TG commander in some cases. So all the comms and data sharing are very robust.

What is new on JSS is LINK Space and Land track capability, which was added to the program's CMS 330 contract. The reasons for this are twofold. First JSS is designed to support to forces ashore in a permissive environment (read humanitarian operations). The second is that this development drives CMS software development out of a different budget, which will eventually be implemented into the frigates and CSC CMS systems.

The end goal is to have a single CMS "suite" and when you install it on a ship you can pick and choose the options. JSS, CSC and CPF's will all have different weapons and sensors, so upon installation you just select the groupings that are pertinent to that particular platform. This will significantly reduce costs as the entire CMS suite can be controlled under a single contract and version.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
Here is what I can tell you. Same LINK as Frigates currently have. No CEC because there are no effectors on JSS (it doesn't operate offensive weapons only self defensive ones). JSS is expected to act as TG commander in some cases. So all the comms and data sharing are very robust.

What is new on JSS is LINK Space and Land track capability, which was added to the program's CMS 330 contract. The reasons for this are twofold. First JSS is designed to support to forces ashore in a permissive environment (read humanitarian operations). The second is that this development drives CMS software development out of a different budget, which will eventually be implemented into the frigates and CSC CMS systems.

The end goal is to have a single CMS "suite" and when you install it on a ship you can pick and choose the options. JSS, CSC and CPF's will all have different weapons and sensors, so upon installation you just select the groupings that are pertinent to that particular platform. This will significantly reduce costs as the entire CMS suite can be controlled under a single contract and version.
Thank you. You connected some dots for me.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,621
Points
1,210
I wonder if I’ll be fully retired before the first JSS is operational.

I harken back to Jan 2000 when VAdm Buck said “Hull in the water in 10 years!”. This is getting as bad (almost) as the Sea King replacement.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,516
Points
1,260
I wonder if I’ll be fully retired before the first JSS is operational.

I harken back to Jan 2000 when VAdm Buck said “Hull in the water in 10 years!”. This is getting as bad (almost) as the Sea King replacement.

If we can't get a boot contact for the Army to work right...

Would nice if we had that 2nd iAOR for the sandy bottom fleet.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,464
Points
1,090
If we can't get a boot contact for the Army to work right...

Would nice if we had that 2nd iAOR for the sandy bottom fleet.
Ill say it again, Procurement is more about jobs then capabilities, seriously if this wasn't a government contract people would be getting fired for these delays. Why are we not handing down penalties or sanctions against these companies that cannot deliver as contracted? Threaten to go get south Korea to build ships, or even have them build a single ship, our industry needs a wake up call to police them selves a lot better.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,516
Points
1,260
Ill say it again, Procurement is more about jobs then capabilities, seriously if this wasn't a government contract people would be getting fired for these delays. Why are we not handing down penalties or sanctions against these companies that cannot deliver as contracted? Threaten to go get south Korea to build ships, or even have them build a single ship, our industry needs a wake up call to police them selves a lot better.

You're preaching to the choir.

I couldn't care less about Canadian industry or jobs when it comes to defence.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
6,837
Points
1,010
You're preaching to the choir.

I couldn't care less about Canadian industry or jobs when it comes to defence.
No government of any stripe is going to “care less” when it comes to Canadian Industry and jobs when speaking about defence spending.

You might as well stay in reality land.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,516
Points
1,260
No government of any stripe is going to “care less” when it comes to Canadian Industry and jobs when speaking about defence spending.

You might as well stay in reality land.

I prefer my land of purple sky's and responsible citizenry and government.

Now if youre done being a negative Nancy I'd like to get back to it. ;)
 
Top