AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[quadrapiper]

It could, but the cost vs benifit. Australia has it because it needs to move forces to the far side of the "Air/Sea Gap" and use Australian army forces to plug the choke points enemy fleets would use to transit to attack Australia. As well as deny basing for enemy airforces.

Spain has it because they believe that they may have to intervene in the near abroad (Africa mainly). Though some of their naval choices feel more like prestige and industrial than logical.

France has colonies, Italy has near abroad issues (Libya for example). UK has colonial assets far from home.

Canada has exactly what reason for an LHD. I just don't see it at all. One could easily roll in all those non-amphib capabilities into a Helicopter carrier that is more specialized for the task. But honestly just getting the escorts sorted out is a huge effort. RCD's, submarines and JSS are good lines of effort that make sense.

Could see an argument for a few federally-owned Pickups of the Sea LSTs, or something akin to the West Coast-standard coastal freighters with landing ramps. Not necessarily CAF (maybe CFAV, maybe CCG, maybe someone breaks out all the CCG roles into separate fleets, whatever) but available to shift a bunch of GoC wheeled/tracked stuff around the Arctic archipelago.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canada has exactly what reason for an LHD. I just don't see it at all. One could easily roll in all those non-amphib capabilities into a Helicopter carrier that is more specialized for the task. But honestly just getting the escorts sorted out is a huge effort. RCD's, submarines and JSS are good lines of effort that make sense.

I agree we have lot on our plate right now, but I disagree that we can only rely upon the AOP's alone to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic. Landing a company in something like the BvS 10 does not seem like much, but doing it on a regular basis throughout the archipelago is a bit like a dog going through their "territory" and pissing on the corners. It's very much a use it or lose scenario in my mind.

Getting a couple of ship similar to these built with ice strengthening, will provide a lot of capability, with very little impact on crewing or budget

 

[Maxman1]

What role then does the Japanese Helo/Destroyer's play today and/or going forward, the 4 that they currently operate.

Could Canada operate something similar?

Or the Italian carrier Cavour.

 

[foresterab]

I agree we have lot on our plate right now, but I disagree that we can only rely upon the AOP's alone to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic. Landing a company in something like the BvS 10 does not seem like much, but doing it on a regular basis throughout the archipelago is a bit like a dog going through their "territory" and pissing on the corners. It's very much a use it or lose scenario in my mind.

Getting a couple of ship similar to these built with ice strengthening, will provide a lot of capability, with very little impact on crewing or budget

I wonder how that would work for blue water vs. brown water situations. A modern version of a LST for artic unit movements could be great but I wonder about keel depth for use on something like the Churchill or Mackenzie rivers. Even the movement of fuel might require a shallow draft tender to a river/coast supply depot...

But then who mans such a beast? Is there enough demand that a naval auxiliary version of the Canadian Rangers could be manned up to handle supply runs (for isolated communities and reducing air freight needs) and then having local crew, used to the regions waters, available for CAF use?

No idea but just thinking of options besides big honking ships and tiny canoes.

 

[deepblue202]

Wow!
Davie thought of this. Interesting.

get them to build two and you can sell them to the public as dual use for domestic emergency and fleet ships

I agree we have lot on our plate right now, but I disagree that we can only rely upon the AOP's alone to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic. Landing a company in something like the BvS 10 does not seem like much, but doing it on a regular basis throughout the archipelago is a bit like a dog going through their "territory" and pissing on the corners. It's very much a use it or lose scenario in my mind.

Getting a couple of ship similar to these built with ice strengthening, will provide a lot of capability, with very little impact on crewing or budget

Would it be easier to rework our current Protecteur class design and make the main deck a helicopter deck with an elevator to lower deck and maybe a ramp on the side just asking it?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wonder how that would work for blue water vs. brown water situations. A modern version of a LST for artic unit movements could be great but I wonder about keel depth for use on something like the Churchill or Mackenzie rivers. Even the movement of fuel might require a shallow draft tender to a river/coast supply depot...

But then who mans such a beast? Is there enough demand that a naval auxiliary version of the Canadian Rangers could be manned up to handle supply runs (for isolated communities and reducing air freight needs) and then having local crew, used to the regions waters, available for CAF use?

No idea but just thinking of options besides big honking ships and tiny canoes.

Apparently 18 man crew. You could layup an AOP's for the season and use that crew.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I would think some CB 90s would be just what the doctor ordered if not for landing the Bv S 10 capability. I wonder if they could be carried as deck cargo ?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

At a little over 50 feet and max weight of 20 tons, I believe that the main cranes on Asterix are capable of handling them. So the answer is: Yes, CB90's could be carried as deck cargo. Pretty sure they could also be carried swung from davits.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Wow!
Davie thought of this. Interesting.

The Moskva Class has already been built, used and discarded due to its unstable seakeeping characteristics. You should see the even bigger piece of crap they replaced it with.

 

[Maxman1]

The Moskva Class has already been built, used and discarded due to its unstable seakeeping characteristics. You should see the even bigger piece of crap they replaced it with.

Something like the  Cavour or the  Trieste would be perfect.

The  Trieste has a large well deck, and two more decks than the  Cavour. Both can be used for amphibious warfare, but that isn't the primary purpose.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The Italians built both of those ships for under 1Billion USD each. It would cost Canada at least 10 Billion to build either one, and twice that to refit an existing one to “ Canadian Standards”.

But you’re right, a serious country that’s an exact replica of Canadian geography could really benefit from one or both of those ships.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The Italians built both of those ships for under 1Billion USD each. It would cost Canada at least 10 Billion to build either one, and twice that to refit an existing one to “ Canadian Standards”.

But you’re right, a serious country that’s an exact replica of Canadian geography could really benefit from one or both of those ships.

As yourself which G7 countries don’t have any form of a carrier and why?
Now which G20 countries don’t and why they don’t.

 

[deepblue202]

The Italians built both of those ships for under 1Billion USD each. It would cost Canada at least 10 Billion to build either one, and twice that to refit an existing one to “ Canadian Standards”.

But you’re right, a serious country that’s an exact replica of Canadian geography could really benefit from one or both of those ships.

If the Italians have shipyard space why would we build it here in Canada. I would get them to build one to Canadian ship standards.

 

[Cloud Cover]

If the Italians have shipyard space why would we build it here in Canada. I would get them to build one to Canadian ship standards.

Hahahaha. It’s not about ships it’s about jobs.

 

[Rjgillies]

Groupe Desgagnés has a fleet of dry cargo ships with a variety of ships sailing from Montreal to the High Arctic (see High Arctic Haulers series on the 2020 sealift)

Could the CAF partner on 2-3 additional ships that could be designed to move wheeled/tracked vehicles, etc and then place them on the sealift run with provision to use them in time of crisis?

 

[deepblue202]

Hahahaha. It’s not about ships it’s about jobs.

Realistically the current three large shipyards are going to be busy with building ships for the next 20 years so getting it built overseas seems to be the only option.

 

[foresterab]

I wonder how that would work for blue water vs. brown water situations. A modern version of a LST for artic unit movements could be great but I wonder about keel depth for use on something like the Churchill or Mackenzie rivers. Even the movement of fuel might require a shallow draft tender to a river/coast supply depot...

But then who mans such a beast? Is there enough demand that a naval auxiliary version of the Canadian Rangers could be manned up to handle supply runs (for isolated communities and reducing air freight needs) and then having local crew, used to the regions waters, available for CAF use?

No idea but just thinking of options besides big honking ships and tiny canoes.

Following up on previous thinking:

This is an Australia design - 0.6m draft - that you might be able to move 1 or 2 vehicles with. But at 15m total length it might be fine for river transport but not really meeting ideal CAF needs.

15mtr Landing Barge - New Build Commercial Boats New Build LCT

New build 15 metre Landing Craft (LCT) will take 20 tonne on deck and has been designed to take a Toyota Landcruiser

commercialboats.com.au

Or you're into the LVT type like this one at over 4m depth. Which I can see for some ocean work but wonder how well it would work on rivers/shoaling shores.

BRAND NEW - 7000T LCT Deck Barge - SeaBoats

7000T LCT Deck Barge 2022 101.75m (333ft 9in) 21.80m (71ft 6in) 4.09m (13ft 5in) China Ivan Colaco USD 4.3 million This ship is a deck cargo ship, suitable...

www.seaboats.net

100m length would carry plenty of cargo but that's not going to be super maneuverable.

Or if the only need to is transport from A -> B maybe we're talking tugs and flat barges + ramp for offloading. Probably the least sexy design but nobody cares how the fuel makes it to the depot...just that it's there.

Someday I'll get up north and see more of the country but a local knowledge of conditions will be important I have to think.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Groupe Desgagnés has a fleet of dry cargo ships with a variety of ships sailing from Montreal to the High Arctic (see High Arctic Haulers series on the 2020 sealift)

Could the CAF partner on 2-3 additional ships that could be designed to move wheeled/tracked vehicles, etc and then place them on the sealift run with provision to use them in time of crisis?

Seen and this is good thinking. How to fit helo decks, fuel stores and accommodation for transit though. And support ships to sustain the effort. The 2 JSS will be run off their feet as it is. Crew arrangements- like an RFA? Release the ship to the civi side when not being used by CAF.
The navy doesn’t have the dockyard space, the crew or even the expertise (but they’ll develop the last two very quickly if they wanted to).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Groupe Desgagnés has a fleet of dry cargo ships with a variety of ships sailing from Montreal to the High Arctic (see High Arctic Haulers series on the 2020 sealift)

Could the CAF partner on 2-3 additional ships that could be designed to move wheeled/tracked vehicles, etc and then place them on the sealift run with provision to use them in time of crisis?

It's the last leg ashore is the issue. It could be done but slowly and the crew could/will refuse to go anywhere there is any risk.