AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[PrairieFella]

AOPV can certainly carry a patrol of rangers and troops, the 20 person embarked forces mess and boarding party equipment room is tailor made for this in mind. The landing craft is not that good of a product. A couple of CB 90's on deck could be a viable alternative.

So spitballing here, could it handle a BVS10 or two and a section for each? I know that isn't even within the realm of possibility but would it be theoretically possible?

 

[Stoker]

So spitballing here, could it handle a BVS10 or two and a section for each? I know that isn't even within the realm of possibility but would it be theoretically possible?

Personnel for sure. A couple of BVS10's? possibly. They do have a vehicle bay that can fit skidoos, ATV's, side by sides or a small pickup. I would love to bring one onboard and see if it fits.

 

[PrairieFella]

Personnel for sure. A couple of BVS10's? possibly. They do have a vehicle bay that can fit skidoos, ATV's, side by sides or a small pickup. I would love to bring one onboard and see if it fits.

Any navy highers-up - get on requesting a BV206 lol

 

[GR66]

AOPV can certainly carry a patrol of rangers and troops, the 20 person embarked forces mess and boarding party equipment room is tailor made for this in mind. The landing craft is not that good of a product. A couple of CB 90's on deck could be a viable alternative.

You're right that the AOPS landing craft isn't an ideal option for moving troops around the arctic. It's really more of a ship-to-shore connector than a transport.

Perhaps something like Damen's LCVP 1604 landing craft would be better:

https://res.cloudinary.com/damen-shipyards2/catalogue/defence-and-security/landing-crafts/lcvp-1604/product-sheet-landing-craft-vehicle-personnel-lcvp-1604.pdf

Can be equipped with an enclosed passenger section to protect against the elements, has a 200nm range and can travel at 22kn

The main task of the LCVPs is to transport various vehicles, such as Landrovers, BV206s and personnel up to 35 persons between ship and beachhead.

It could be used to move Ranger/CAF patrols along with their ATV's and other gear. ChatGPT figures the BvS10 is too heavy for the front ramp but it could transport our BV206's (or possibly we could get them with a ramp designed to support a BvS10?).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Likely the crane would not be able to lift it and it would take up significant deck space.

Keeping CB90's up there and building up a domestic Naval Reserve to operate them in the open water months would be a good idea.

 

[GR66]

Likely the crane would not be able to lift it and it would take up significant deck space.

Keeping CB90's up there and building up a domestic Naval Reserve to operate them in the open water months would be a good idea.

I wasn't suggesting that the LCVP 1604's be deployed on the AOPS. You'd keep them in the Arctic, ideally in addition to CB90's.

The CB90's are great for patrolling the waters and quickly deploying dismounted troops but you also need something that can move around their vehicles, kit and supplies which is where the landing craft would come in.

 

[Stoker]

Likely the crane would not be able to lift it and it would take up significant deck space.

Keeping CB90's up there and building up a domestic Naval Reserve to operate them in the open water months would be a good idea.

I would say a prefab hanger or metal building to store boat and some sort of launching system. Add in a fenced compound for POL stores, det truck storage and laydown area for 20ft containers to be delivered during the sealift. Have a cadre of locals with possibly a few regular force sailors posted in for mentoring would fit the bill.

 

[Stoker]

Anyone know the size comparison between the AOPS landing craft verses the CB90?

 

[Kirkhill]

Anyone know the size comparison between the AOPS landing craft verses the CB90?

Irving Shipbuilding Inc., Canada’s National Shipbuilder, has awarded an $8.9 million contract to ABCO Industries Limited (ABCO) for the design and construction of 12 metre landing craft for the Royal Canadian Navy’s Harry DeWolf-class Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS).

Halifax Shipyard is constructing up to six AOPS as part of the Government of Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). Each AOPS will have one custom designed 12m landing craft onboard. The landing craft will be used by Royal Canadian Navy to deploy vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles or trucks, from the ship’s vehicle bay.

ABCO Industries to build landing craft for Royal Canadian Navy’s new Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships

ABCO Industries Limited (ABCO) for the design and construction of 12 metre landing craft for the Royal Canadian Navy’s Harry DeWolf-class Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships

shipsforcanada.ca

From the graphics it appears as if the landing craft is intended to fit into one of the three slots that could contain a TEU-40 in which case its beam can't be greater than 8 ft or 2.44 m.

CB90 (from Dockstavarvet)

Technical data​

Length, OA:	14.90 m
Beam:	3.85 m
Displacement:	18 tons
Engine power:	2 x 600 kW
Speed:	45 knots

 

[Kirkhill]

I would say a prefab hanger or metal building to store boat and some sort of launching system. Add in a fenced compound for POL stores, det truck storage and laydown area for 20ft containers to be delivered during the sealift. Have a cadre of locals with possibly a few regular force sailors posted in for mentoring would fit the bill.

For the Rangers/Naval Reserve

If on a river/coast, which is most of them,

3x CB90
2x LCVP 1604

Add in 4 to 6 BvS10 Beowulfs (non-armoured)

And transfer the (now-surplus to requirement) RCAF Griffons to an Air Reserve component.

 

[Kirkhill]

For the Rangers/Naval Reserve

If on a river/coast, which is most of them,

3x CB90
2x LCVP 1604

Add in 4 to 6 BvS10 Beowulfs (non-armoured)

And transfer the (now-surplus to requirement) RCAF Griffons to an Air Reserve component.

Rethink...

Link to Aluminum boat builders in Canada. We are not short of them.

Aluminum boat builders in canada

www.google.com

Do we need to buy offshore designs built to milspec standards to support Ranger operations?

Maybe the locals have got some ideas on what they think might be useful. Maybe they can even build them.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Imo RORO is a great capability for the NAVRES, ships that don't need the sail all the time and take very few skill sets to maintain

A RORO needs a dock which means deep water, a very very rare thing in the Arctic.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Do we need to buy offshore designs built to milspec standards to support Ranger operations?

Maybe the locals have got some ideas on what they think might be useful. Maybe they can even build them.

One perspective.

https://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol15num2/vol15num2art2.pdf

The argument that the government should give the Rangers a maritime role in the Arctic overlooks an obvious and important fact: the Rangers already operate in the maritime domain, by boat in summer and by snowmachine in winter. Furthermore, recommendations to expand the Ranger maritime role tend to miss and even undermine the attempts by the Canadian Coast Guard, the Nunavut Inuit Monitoring Program and the Guardians initiative to bolster community-based marine capabilities and local maritime domain awareness.

The Ranger Maritime Role
Currently, the Canadian Rangers perform several roles in the maritime domain as part of their broader mission as the “eyes, ears, and voice” of the Canadian Armed Forces(CAF) in northern coastal communities.7 The official Ranger tasking list includes coastal and inland water surveillance, and during training exercises Ranger patrols often use boats to travel between destinations

Rangers employ their own vessels for open-water patrolling during the summer and fall for which they receive cash reimbursement according to an established equipment usage rate. In employing their own watercraft , they are fulfilling the Canadian Rangers’ primary mandate, which is to “provide lightly equipped, self-sufficient, mobile forces in support of the CF’s [Canadian Forces] sovereignty and domestic operation tasks in Canada.”10 Furthermore, by encouraging individuals to invest in their own equipment (rather than government-owned assets), this allows Rangers to procure appropriate vessels and vehicles to operate in their home environments while representing a material contribution to local capacity-building. Providing Rangers with Canadian Armed Forces-owned boats would not only add a tremendous (and unnecessary) logistical burden on the military, it would also undermine the guiding philosophy that Rangers are best suited to make their own decisions about what they need to operate comfortably and effectively across diverse northern environments.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A RORO needs a dock which means deep water, a very very rare thing in the Arctic.

Something we really need to fix as well

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One perspective.

https://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol15num2/vol15num2art2.pdf

Keeping in mind that they still can't afford what they may want and might not have access to it.

 

[MilEME09]

A RORO needs a dock which means deep water, a very very rare thing in the Arctic.

Any deep water port in the arctic unless its on an island will likely have rail access to the rest of Canada, defeating the need for roro

 

[Prairie canuck]

Any deep water port in the arctic unless its on an island will likely have rail access to the rest of Canada, defeating the need for roro

If connected to mainland Canada ports are more likely to have deep water and docks however the many islands and hamlets rarely if ever have those facilities. Therefore some sort of LST or Smaller LHD with larger landing craft provide the capability to "land" larger vehicles. Finding a beach is another matter .

 

[lenaitch]

I'm wondering what a barge/landing craft would do for the Rangers that their typical 16-18' 'tin boat' and outboard wouldn't do (being able to afford one aside). Does a Ranger unit have issued kit beyond whatever is issued to the individual?

Other than some kind of government make-work project, it is likely that after the cost of building a facility, shipping raw materials, finding the power, etc., it is probably cheaper to buy a welded boat and have it shipped.

Beyond being the 'eyes and ears' and guides of the CAF in the region, trying involve them in actual military manoeuvers (assault landing, etc.) or some kind or maritime sovereignty/law enforcement seems beyond their mandate and someone might want to ask them if this is they want to do. They are volunteers, not at-will employees.

 

[k.numbers]

I'm wondering what a barge/landing craft would do for the Rangers that their typical 16-18' 'tin boat' and outboard wouldn't do (being able to afford one aside). Does a Ranger unit have issued kit beyond whatever is issued to the individual?

Other than some kind of government make-work project, it is likely that after the cost of building a facility, shipping raw materials, finding the power, etc., it is probably cheaper to buy a welded boat and have it shipped.

Beyond being the 'eyes and ears' and guides of the CAF in the region, trying involve them in actual military manoeuvers (assault landing, etc.) or some kind or maritime sovereignty/law enforcement seems beyond their mandate and someone might want to ask them if this is they want to do. They are volunteers, not at-will employees.

Very limited issued kit: ammo, IMPs, some communications and first aid kit, but no vehicles. For the most part, all of the vehicles belong to the Rangers and the CAF pays them a day rate to bring them on exercises. ATVs, snowmobiles, trucks, boats, horses, dog teams, etc. The whole point is for the vehicles to be things the Rangers use and maintain in their daily lives and not require CAF maintenance or training support.

And you're right about the mandate. Rangers are prohibited from receiving tactical training during peacetime. What that actually means (legislatively) is a bit beyond me, but I understood it as requiring the War Measures Act (or similar). When I was at a CRPG HQ in the mid 2010s it was strictly prohibited, at least.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Very limited issued kit: ammo, IMPs, some communications and first aid kit, but no vehicles. For the most part, all of the vehicles belong to the Rangers and the CAF pays them a day rate to bring them on exercises. ATVs, snowmobiles, trucks, boats, horses, dog teams, etc. The whole point is for the vehicles to be things the Rangers use and maintain in their daily lives and not require CAF maintenance or training support.

And you're right about the mandate. Rangers are prohibited from receiving tactical training during peacetime. What that actually means (legislatively) is a bit beyond me, but I understood it as requiring the War Measures Act (or similar). When I was at a CRPG HQ in the mid 2010s it was strictly prohibited, at least.

The Rangers are the very definition of Defence on the cheap. It allows the government to say they're doing something without actually doing much if anything.
The Canadian Government would have a collective aneurysm if examined the original Rangers capabilities during WW II .
I suspect handing out sten guns to 14 year olds would really done wonders for their blood pressure.