• 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)

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
condor888000 said:
Out of curosity, does any navy have any large deck-mounted guns?

As noted by Ex-Dragoon, Canada relies upon small diameter weapons on her naval vessels. I think Peru, of all countries, may hold claim to the largest naval guns right now, 6" twin mounts on some old cruisers. I'm not sure of the current operational status of those ships, though.   I think, but am not totally sure anymore, that the USN's proposed Littoral Combat Ship will mount a 155 mm long range naval gun which will fire precision guided ammunition at a fairly high rate of fire and out to a fair distance. Kind of a navalized Crusader system. I believe this weapon is more of a concept than a reality right now, but as I said, I'm no longer sure of the status of that weapon, or indeed the project itself. [very expensive!!]  

Green Lid: you are referring to the JSS, and without saying much more, just look at the CPF 57mm thread, where there is a little information [ok, speculation on my part,"information" on Ex-D's part] about the proposed vessel.   The navy website also has some information as well: http://www.navy.dnd.ca. Look for the JSS article and come to your own conclusions. A vessel of similar dimensions and displacement, but different role, [it is in fact a more sophisticated vessel] costs about 955 million US dollars to build.   That works out to a lot of Canadian Tire coupons for the Mastercraft do-it-yourself JSS!!    :)

Cheers ...

 
 

Green Lid

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Has a thread for discussions on the JSS been opened in any of the forums, apart from the CPF 57 mm thread.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,877
Points
1,060
http://army.ca/forums/threads/16528/post-71338.html#msg71338

Try this one on for size O Ye of the Green Beanie.  I see you are Army but Army with a Green Lid?  Any actual time in troopships and comments you might like to relate?

Cheers.  ;)
 

Green Lid

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sorry it took so long to reply, it was close to bedtime here on the East Coast when I sent my last post.

Indeed I did wear a green lid at one time even though I was in the Army, The Commando Brigade has soldiers(Engineers,Gunners etc) as well as marines. I do have some experience of Heli and amphibious ops from ships. Do the Canadian forces have this capability or is that the intention of the JSS.

Cheers

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,877
Points
1,060
No such capability at this time Green Lid.    As to whether the JSS is to have such a capability, significant or otherwise seems to be very much up for debate.  

The first two links below are from the Government

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1346
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1347

This link is from one of our universities that hosts a discussion group on the Canadian Forces.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1347

The ship is designed as fleet oiler and replenishment vessel that can also support a joint HQ, a hospital, carry up to 300 LSVWs (Similar in size to the one tonne LandRover or the Pinzgauer) some number of helicopters (Medium if we have them) and possibly a couple of hundred troops.    3 vessels to be bought at about $2.1 billion dollars, or roughly 1 billion quid.

Your thoughts could be interesting.

Cheers.

Edit:  As Ex-Dragoon points out below I left the impression the vessel is only to carry LSVWs.  That is equivalent space.  It actually has up to 1500 lane-meters of covered vehicle space and 1000 lane-meters for weather deck stowage of TEUs.

Sorry for the confusion.  Thanks Ex-D.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Kirk I had to read your post a couple of times because when I originally read it you give the impression that it will only be embarking the LSVW and not the LAVs of an army battlegroup. You might want to edit your post to reflect this to save confusion.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,877
Points
1,060
You are correct EX-D. Sorry for the confusion.  Re-editing now.
 

Green Lid

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kirkhill

You asked for my thoughts, bear in mind I am not an expert in amphibious ops.
If Canada is considering the establishment of such a force,  then I think that it demonstrates a significant shift in thinking at the top.
After all setting up such a force from scratch is not something you do on a whim!!
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Sorry guys I split this from the original 280 discussion to stay more on topic.
 

Green Lid

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kirkhill

I just opened up the links you posted previously, very interesting.
At a more down to earth army level, they would have to set up a new corps/regiment or perhaps re-train light infantry for an amphibious type role
They talk about deploying a battle group I don't know how realistic that is as you are not going to be deploying armoured vehicles or heavy equipment from the ships.

If Canada wants to have this type of capability then Personally I think it is a great idea.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,877
Points
1,060
So it requires some work then does it Green Lid?

You mention light infantry in the amphib role, with some armoured back-up.  There has been some concern expressed on this forum that a such a light force would be relegated to only constabulary duties and not be a proper war-fighting force.  Would you agree with that?

In other words is a light battle group a credible force?

 

Green Lid

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In the right circumstances I think that a light amphibious battle group can be a very credible force.It is just the right type of force to use if you are responding to emergency situations, rescuing Canadians trapped in a foreign country for instance.I would see it as being more of a quick reaction type of force, ready to respond and move at short notice.
 

canuck101

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I was just wondering has anyone seen or heard anything new on the JSS ships since the election promises were made.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Until Parliament sits again in the fall there will be very little progress with any other project beyond the Cyclones.
 

canuck101

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I was just looking at the dnd site: http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp
and looking at the Proposed Ship Capabilities.

Our proposed JSS ships may look like the the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Fort Victoria just a little smaller.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/victoria/

what do you think.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Similiar but all AORs have some degree of commonality world wide from my experience.
 

mjohnston39

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Some recent CG renderings of the proposed JSS from Fleetech news release and DND literature:

img562_21092004212303_3_350.jpg


img562_21092004212303_6_350.jpg


Mike.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
The locations of the two funnels suggests two independent machinery spaces, which is interesting. Is that an APAR mast structure?
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Two machinery spaces isn't that odd as we have they on the CPFs, could be an APAR or just an enclosed mast.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,877
Points
1,060
The two machinery spaces and the Azipod.  Does that mean an Electric Boat concept?

Also, I remember seeing a documentary about a Finnish Oil Tanker designed to cross the Gulf of Bothnia and First Year Ice.  It had an interesting hull form and an Azipod. The vessel appeared like a standard hull form with the bulb at the bow, the bridge in the stern and the azipod below the bridge.  The azipod pushed the tanker through the water conventionally.

In ice, the vessel backed around and presented its "stern" to the ice, rotated the azipod 180 degrees and reversed the rotation of the prop.  This had the effect of both pulling the tanker "backwards" through the ice as well as sucking the water out from under the ice allowing the weight of the vessel to more easily break it when it rode up over the ice.  I believe SNC Lavalin had something to do wiht the design.

The bridge was a double-sided bridge with controls for and aft so that the Captain could control the vessel going both ways.

The designs shown here don't seem to be in line with that control concept but the azipod and hull could be.

 
Top