• 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)

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,953
Points
1,060
The looks like the one I was thinking of.  Don't know how I got SNC Lavalin mixed in there.  So its out of one of Kjell Inge Rokke's companies... curious.
 
S

Storm

Guest
Wouldn't it make more sense to have it RoRo rather than amphibious? I can't see it as a good idea to try and have an AOR take a beach under fire... Besides, where would we stick the vehicles between all the cargo, fuel, and landing craft?
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Now you are seeing with an amphib and an AOR combination will not work and a transport/AOR will.
 
S

Sam69

Guest
Storm said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to have it RoRo rather than amphibious? I can't see it as a good idea to try and have an AOR take a beach under fire... Besides, where would we stick the vehicles between all the cargo, fuel, and landing craft?

This is not an either/or type of argument. You can have the well deck for the amphib type ops and the RoRo ramp. Although the well deck implies the loss of some space inside, it may be a great capability to have if you are trying to land forces in a failed state that either does not have adequate port facilities or where the port facilities have been rendered unusable. Having the well deck does not imply any intention to conduct opposed amphibious operations, it just gives you a few more options for disembarking kit.

Sam
 

Garbageman

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sam69 said:
Having the well deck does not imply any intention to conduct opposed amphibious operations, it just gives you a few more options for disembarking kit.
East Timor for example?  I seem to recall pictures of a unit landing this way (R22R?), so I'm assuming it must have been an allied ship they were landing from?
 
S

Sam69

Guest
Garbageman said:
East Timor for example?  I seem to recall pictures of a unit landing this way (R22R?), so I'm assuming it must have been an allied ship they were landing from?

Yes - Aussie in fact. But what is your point? I merely said that the option of adding a well deck to the JSS does not imply any intention of ever conducting an opposed amphib operation in the future. And I'm not even sure that I would call the East Timor landing "opposed."

The only point that I am trying to make is that the well deck option opens up an alternative means of getting gear ashore that is not dependent on the type of port facilities that the RoRo capability requires. And that having the well deck does not imply any ambition to start planning D-Day 2.  ;D

Sam
 

Garbageman

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sam69 said:
Yes - Aussie in fact. But what is your point? I merely said that the option of adding a well deck to the JSS does not imply any intention of ever conducting an opposed amphib operation in the future. And I'm not even sure that I would call the East Timor landing "opposed."

The only point that I am trying to make is that the well deck option opens up an alternative means of getting gear ashore that is not dependent on the type of port facilities that the RoRo capability requires. And that having the well deck does not imply any ambition to start planning D-Day 2.   ;D

My point was only to reinforce and agree with what you were saying - we've used this amphib capability in the recent past, and it would be a nice thing to be able to do on our own.
 
S

Sam69

Guest
Garbageman said:
My point was only to reinforce and agree with what you were saying - we've used this amphib capability in the recent past, and it would be a nice thing to be able to do on our own.

Sorry - my bad. Missed your point (and it was a good one in retrospect). Note to self: engage brain before replying.

:salute:

Sam
 

Jungle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
The landing in the Bay of Suai was unopposed... but we didn't know that until we went in. There already were troops on the ground, but they were spread thin.
The capability the JSS offers is certainly welcome, as demonstrated in Timor we cannot expect to have port facilities everywhere we go.
Should we ever go into an opposed landing, the ships would have to remain as far as possible from the shore. It is to be expected we would not do this on our own, so we could count on support (Naval and Air) from Allies or from a coalition. Again that was the case in Timor: we sailed on the Aussie ship HMAS Tobruk, and were supported by CH-53s from the USS Belleau Wood, which was sailing nearby. Some French landing craft also took part in the cargo delivery operation. Those had been dispatched from French Polynesia.
The only problem I have with the JSS project is the number of units the govt plans on buying. I would like to see 5 units built, with one unit permanently under Army command.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
I would like to see 5 units built, with one unit permanently under Army command.

Does the Army plan on sailing and maintaining this unit as well?
 

Jungle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Ex-Dragoon said:
I would like to see 5 units built, with one unit permanently under Army command.

Does the Army plan on sailing and maintaining this unit as well?
Of course not... just like the Navy is not flying, or maintaining, the Maritime Helicopters. ;)
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Jungle said:
Does the Army plan on sailing and maintaining this unit as well?
Of course not... just like the Navy is not flying, or maintaining, the Maritime Helicopters. ;)

We're not under Navy command. Our command still lies at 1CAD. We're just attached to the Navy when we're embarked.
 

Jungle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
As usual Ex-Dragoon is ultra-protective of his Navy...   ;D
OK, to explain this clearly: the first time I was briefed on the project (then called ALSC) the plan was to buy 5 units, and have one of those units, sailed and maintained by the Navy, detached to the Army.
"Under command" was probably the wrong expression; don't get your panties in a knot, you will not be posted to an Army Ship next APS...   ::)
The intention was to have one of the units (on a rotation basis) detached to the Army so we could train in amphib ops, and it would be available immediately for rapid deployment. That's all...
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Unless the budget for the program is increased by a large measure, the Navy will be lucky to get 3 ships, and they will be very basic models even with the funding allocated right now.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,953
Points
1,060
I still don't get why the Brits, the Dutch and the Spanish can buy a boat that will transport a Battle Group's worth of kit, a Command centre, a hospital and a Helicopter maintenance facility for $160,000,000 each and we are going to spend $2,100,000,000 for 3 vessels that may be great tankers and supply the navy with all the frozen beef and Tim Hortons they can handle but on the face of it have only a half-arsed transport capability. 

By the way 160,000,000 goes into 2,100,000,000 13.25 times.

What are we doing? Rebuilding Davies Drydock so it can handle larger vessels?  As to job opportunities it should be noted that the Dutch designed vessels were built by local yards in the UK (Glasgow) and in Spain.

Bollocks.

 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Kirkhill ..good points. By way of contrast, look at LPD 17 project, at around 900 million USD per hull. I suspect Canada will take the middle ground, as long as nothing goes wrong, and the ships are not too complex for the builders that are still standing when the contract is tendered, subject to the customary process of delay, cancellation, reformulate, retender etc.

* edit: 800 million: source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17.htm

Link posted under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
As usual Ex-Dragoon is ultra-protective of his Navy...   ;D
Someone has to be otherwise misconceptions and  misinformation about the Navy would abound.
OK, to explain this clearly: the first time I was briefed on the project (then called ALSC) the plan was to buy 5 units, and have one of those units, sailed and maintained by the Navy, detached to the Army.
"Under command" was probably the wrong expression; don't get your panties in a knot, you will not be posted to an Army Ship next APS...   ::)
The intention was to have one of the units (on a rotation basis) detached to the Army so we could train in amphib ops, and it would be available immediately for rapid deployment. That's all...

See that would make sense if we had 5 units, with 3 you are cutting down on expeditionary capability and with the 2 AOR we whave now we have problems considering 1 is still in HSL.

As for my panties Jungle, I lent you my thong but you stretched it all out so I am wondering about those knots you put in yourself. ;)
 
Top