AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[dimsum]

It cant really be because they are not sexy can it?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is The Royal Navy Still a 'Blue Water Navy'? No, it is not.

A blog about UK defence issues which tries to put a positive and fresh look at many current matters impacting UK and wider defence.

thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com

kinda a dark view of the RN as it stands. Needs more support ships.

If everyone needs more support ships why is no one building them? It cant really be because they are not sexy can it?

Same reasons the USAF like to build fighters but has been trying to kill the A10 for years.

A Navy's whole reason to exist is the protection supply lines and yet Navies are inherently blind to their own logistics.

 

[GR66]

Is The Royal Navy Still a 'Blue Water Navy'? No, it is not.

A blog about UK defence issues which tries to put a positive and fresh look at many current matters impacting UK and wider defence.

thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com

kinda a dark view of the RN as it stands. Needs more support ships.

If everyone needs more support ships why is no one building them? It cant really be because they are not sexy can it?

Interesting quotes from the article:

In 1982 the RFA deployed no less than 10 of its tankers to participate in the Falkland’s War. A further 15 civilian tankers were taken up from trade and taken into use as support tankers for the operation.

In 2010 the RFA had 2300 personnel crewing 16 ships (6 tankers, 4 store ships, 4 LSD(A), RFA ARGUS and RFA DILIGENCE). Today the RFA has 1600 personnel (a roughly 30% headcount cut) and operates on paper 6 tankers, 1 store ship, 3 LSD(A) and 2 ‘MROS’ (newly commissioned cable surveillance and MCMV support vessels). In reality the situation is even worse as two of those tankers (the WAVE class) have been in reserve for several years due to a lack of crew and are about to be scrapped or sold. RFA FORT GEORGE was scrapped 10 years ago, the two older FORT class spent years in reserve and have now been sold to Egypt while the 31yr old RFA FORT VICTORIA is reportedly in very poor material condition and may not deploy again on operations except in an emergency. RFA DILIGENCE was paid off years ago, ostensibly due to facilities in Bahrain replacing her, but leaving the fleet without a repair vessel. Falklands veteran RFA ARGUS is now approaching her 50th birthday and is undergoing conversion to an amphibious support ship (presumably to make up for the loss without replacement of HMS OCEAN). Constant crew shortages mean it is hard to get ships to sea and operational – it is notable how many RFA vessels seem to spend their time alongside and not deployed while waiting for crew to sail them. The result is that since 2010 the RFA has been gutted, losing 25% of its landing ships, 30% of its staff, 30% of its tankers, 75% of its store ships and 100% of its repair ships. The modern Royal Navy will be reliant on a force of 4 tankers and just one supply ship to support its global operations.

One could argue that where Canada can't take a leading role in front line coalition military action we could certainly do some of the heavy lifting in the unglamourous background roles. Greater capacity in things like tankers, transport aircraft, AAR, MPAs, Air Defence, etc. These capabilities are key requirements in a major conflict and at the same time meet many of the political aims of typical Canadian governments (global reach and influence without being seen as "militaristic").

 

[dimsum]

Greater capacity in things like tankers, transport aircraft, AAR, MPAs, Air Defence, etc. These capabilities are key requirements in a major conflict and at the same time meet many of the political aims of typical Canadian governments (global reach and influence without being seen as "militaristic").

Of those examples, I think MPAs are very "militaristic".

We can couch it in "surveillance" terminology all we want, but realistically the MPA task is to hunt and kill submarines and surface warships.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Interesting quotes from the article:


One could argue that where Canada can't take a leading role in front line coalition military action we could certainly do some of the heavy lifting in the unglamourous background roles. Greater capacity in things like tankers, transport aircraft, AAR, MPAs, Air Defence, etc. These capabilities are key requirements in a major conflict and at the same time meet many of the political aims of typical Canadian governments (global reach and influence without being seen as "militaristic").

Agreed. Canada should put its eggs in the Sea and Air basket(s).

 

[GR66]

Of those examples, I think MPAs are very "militaristic".

We can couch it in "surveillance" terminology all we want, but realistically the MPA task is to hunt and kill submarines and surface warships.

No argument from me....but which is an easier sell to Canadians?

This...


or this?

 

[suffolkowner]

No argument from me....but which is an easier sell to Canadians?

This...
View attachment 78088

or this?
View attachment 78089

Canadians dont know or care until it directly impacts them or until a political party lets call them Liberals make an election issue out of it. There is a broad assumption by many people that government or even businesses are taking care of the things that they are supposed to until exposed

 

[dimsum]

Canadians People dont know or care until it directly impacts them or until a political party lets call them Liberals any opposition party make an election issue out of it. There is a broad assumption by many people that government or even businesses are taking care of the things that they are supposed to until exposed

This is not limited to Canadians.

 

[suffolkowner]

This is not limited to Canadians.

true but I think we are better or worse at it then others

 

[FSTO]

Of those examples, I think MPAs are very "militaristic".

We can couch it in "surveillance" terminology all we want, but realistically the MPA task is to hunt and kill submarines and surface warships.

Shhh, keep that under your hat.

But I wouldn't worry, Canadians as a whole see the F35 as the only plane in the RCAF (if they even know what a RCAF is) the rest of them are just grey things flying about and they have no idea what they do.

 

[dimsum]

Shhh, keep that under your hat.

But I wouldn't worry, Canadians as a whole see the F35 as the only plane in the RCAF (if they even know what a RCAF is) the rest of them are just grey things flying about and they have no idea what they do.

 

[suffolkowner]

View attachment 78090

I was in Barrie yesterday and people sure seemed to like the F18s flying overhead as well

 

[FSTO]

View attachment 78090

They’re not painted grey.

 

[Maxman1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1663734033543512066

 

[suffolkowner]

Maybe Davie/Federal Fleet could buy one of the Wave tankers and expand their AOR operation at 20 yrs old they are like brand new

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's a question - Could a Big Honking Ship be driven from the Life Boat?

Remove the Bridge
Move the Lifeboat and Ramp forwards.
Increase the size of the Lifeboat to include bunks for the crew.
Decrease the crew size to 8 to 12.
Tie in all the Lifeboat controls to the BHS.
One HMI controlling both the BHS engines, propulsors and rudders and those of the Lifeboat.

Don't worry about passenger safety. Troopies will fly. This is just to deliver cargo and other inanimate objects.
Maximize the use of Autonomy but maintaining a minimal supervisory capability.
And if the ship can't be saved by the automatic solutions then save the crew and abandon the ship.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

When you find a merchant marine crew wiling to live in bunks inside a life raft - large or not - instead of in comfy cabins, you let me know who they are.

I won't even touch on other aspects of this that make no sense from a naval point of view.

P.S.: What you are offering is neither an AOR nor a JSS.

 

[GR66]

View attachment 78422


Here's a question - Could a Big Honking Ship be driven from the Life Boat?

Remove the Bridge
Move the Lifeboat and Ramp forwards.
Increase the size of the Lifeboat to include bunks for the crew.
Decrease the crew size to 8 to 12.
Tie in all the Lifeboat controls to the BHS.
One HMI controlling both the BHS engines, propulsors and rudders and those of the Lifeboat.

Don't worry about passenger safety. Troopies will fly. This is just to deliver cargo and other inanimate objects.
Maximize the use of Autonomy but maintaining a minimal supervisory capability.
And if the ship can't be saved by the automatic solutions then save the crew and abandon the ship.

You were watching Star Trek on the weekend weren't you?

 

[Maxman1]

View attachment 78422


Here's a question - Could a Big Honking Ship be driven from the Life Boat?

Remove the Bridge
Move the Lifeboat and Ramp forwards.
Increase the size of the Lifeboat to include bunks for the crew.
Decrease the crew size to 8 to 12.
Tie in all the Lifeboat controls to the BHS.
One HMI controlling both the BHS engines, propulsors and rudders and those of the Lifeboat.

Don't worry about passenger safety. Troopies will fly. This is just to deliver cargo and other inanimate objects.
Maximize the use of Autonomy but maintaining a minimal supervisory capability.
And if the ship can't be saved by the automatic solutions then save the crew and abandon the ship.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK

How about from an accompanying helicopter?

Or an adjacent frigate?