Replacing the Subs

[Lumber]

The issue there is a lot of the maintenance activities and ammunitioning activities don't play together, and there is a very good reason there is a lot of empty space around ammo depots. Even with bunkering and blast walls co-locating at NAD is dumb for a lot of reasons.

I guess I'll find out, should be helping with the fire protection and response capabilities as the project gets going.

I know the guy who's drawing up all the potential new jetties to find ways to fit all these new ships. I have no idea of what is actually going to finally be proposed and approved. However, what they did have to do is draw up plans for different "scales" or fleet size increase, including coming up with a plan if we went full bore and got all 15 RCDs, 6 x AOPs, several existing CPFs until 2040+, 8 Corvettes, Asterix, 8-12 subs, and 4! JSS.

Also, just to be clear on terminology. "NAD" is the Dockyard Annex directly across the harbour from Dockyard in Dartmouth. CFAD is the Naval Ammunition Depot. Confusing, right? I'm pretty sure CFAD is off the table; too much risk, but NAD will definitely be a place some of the ship's tie up.

 

[Underway]

I know the guy who's drawing up all the potential new jetties to find ways to fit all these new ships. I have no idea of what is actually going to finally be proposed and approved. However, what they did have to do is draw up plans for different "scales" or fleet size increase, including coming up with a plan if we went full bore and got all 15 RCDs, 6 x AOPs, several existing CPFs until 2040+, 8 Corvettes, Asterix, 8-12 subs, and 4! JSS.

Yes, I'm hearing two more JSS are going to be proposed by Seaspan (four is the correct number of JSS IMHO). I don't know if this is a Davie style unsolicited proposal or not. It also might be a build them for the USN proposal type of thing (wrong thread I know).

That's an exciting/interesting 10-20 year plan though. Now we need a 10-20 year pers development and training plan, shore infrastructure plan etc... I can't keep @Navy_Pete people concerns at bay any more! We need a public people plan.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I suspect that at some point, the RCN will have to relent on its current method where every ship sits at its own jetty, and accept that, as in olden days, some ships or subs will have to nest together.

NAD has enough room at the current jetty to accommodate 4 submarines individually, plus there is enough room to build up support infrastructure including, to the South of the jetty, room to build a new submarine refit shed and a new syncrolift - though the rail line may have to be diverted around the back of it.

On the West coast, with the MCDV's retired, Y Jetty can easily be repurposed to accommodate the Orca's (which are probably the only vessels other than KHM's boats that can make use of it in its current form), leaving Z Jetty and the one to its West (don't know its designation) to either accommodate up to six submarines or be replaced by a single larger jetty mid way between then and accommodate two to four corvettes.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I know the guy who's drawing up all the potential new jetties to find ways to fit all these new ships. I have no idea of what is actually going to finally be proposed and approved. However, what they did have to do is draw up plans for different "scales" or fleet size increase, including coming up with a plan if we went full bore and got all 15 RCDs, 6 x AOPs, several existing CPFs until 2040+, 8 Corvettes, Asterix, 8-12 subs, and 4! JSS.

Also, just to be clear on terminology. "NAD" is the Dockyard Annex directly across the harbour from Dockyard in Dartmouth. CFAD is the Naval Ammunition Depot. Confusing, right? I'm pretty sure CFAD is off the table; too much risk, but NAD will definitely be a place some of the ship's tie up.

Would there be the need to add in some 'buffer' space for when visiting warships come to port?

 

[Lumber]

The slow pace of our "construction industry" in general will hamper things. NC has to be replaced, and apparently that is a 6 year project. How on earth did it take 4 years to build the entire Golden Gate bridge, but it will take 6 years to tear down and rebuild NC?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I suspect that at some point, the RCN will have to relent on its current method where every ship sits at its own jetty, and accept that, as in olden days, some ships or subs will have to nest together.

I think we need to embrace forward deploying ships and rotating crews.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think we need to embrace forward deploying ships and rotating crews.

Just so I understand, do you mean 'end' a ships deployment in say Yokohama and fly the crew back to Canada and fly a new crew out to Yokohama and start a new deployment directly from there?

Would be an interesting scenario to map out the costs to 'move' the ship from Japan back over to BC (in terms of time/money/costs) vs the ship remaining stationary and the cost to fly/accommodate 2 sets of crews from Japan to BC and from BC to Japan.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Just so I understand, do you mean 'end' a ships deployment in say Yokohama and fly the crew back to Canada and fly a new crew out to Yokohama and start a new deployment directly from there?

Would be an interesting scenario to map out the costs to 'move' the ship from Japan back over to BC (in terms of time/money/costs) vs the ship remaining stationary and the cost to fly/accommodate 2 sets of crews from Japan to BC and from BC to Japan.

Essentially. What I would like also is in theatre second and third line Log and Maint support forward deployed as well.

I would say the ships need to be rotated every X years for a deep maintenance period as well.

 

[GR66]

Yes, I'm hearing two more JSS are going to be proposed by Seaspan (four is the correct number of JSS IMHO). I don't know if this is a Davie style unsolicited proposal or not. It also might be a build them for the USN proposal type of thing (wrong thread I know).

Curious to know what the Navy folks on here think. Do we need 4 x JSS or would 2 x JSS and 2 x more conventional oilers be enough?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Just so I understand, do you mean 'end' a ships deployment in say Yokohama and fly the crew back to Canada and fly a new crew out to Yokohama and start a new deployment directly from there?

Would be an interesting scenario to map out the costs to 'move' the ship from Japan back over to BC (in terms of time/money/costs) vs the ship remaining stationary and the cost to fly/accommodate 2 sets of crews from Japan to BC and from BC to Japan.

This is common in the CCG and commercial world. The only challenge is that you have a small caretaker contingent onboard, with the rest at the airport till the new crew arrives, then you have to do a brief handover and hustle the caretaker crew to catch the plane. In remote locations like the Arctic, the aircraft is chartered, so less of a rush.

Overseas you could arrange for the arriving crew to come a day or two early, they get a chance to see the sights. Do the handover and the departing crew either stays a day and gets some leave or fly out later the same day. Crew changes can be done at friendly naval bases.

 

[NavyShooter]

Curious to know what the Navy folks on here think. Do we need 4 x JSS or would 2 x JSS and 2 x more conventional oilers be enough?

Having 4 of the same ship would make the most sense in terms of training, spares, etc.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Having 4 of the same ship would make the most sense in terms of training, spares, etc.

We also used to have small oilers that would fuel the ships in harbour and could move up and down the coast as needed.