Author Topic: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)  (Read 618339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jollyjacktar

    Looking forward to Christmas leave.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 136,242
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,666
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1500 on: November 05, 2017, 16:52:40 »
And how did you elect your shop stewards?   ;D

Trial by combat, of course.  It was said, we had the best union in the navy.   :nod:
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline jollyjacktar

    Looking forward to Christmas leave.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 136,242
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,666
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1501 on: November 05, 2017, 17:03:59 »
This is part of what I'm getting ar about the "new ship"

How much of this was a manual operation on a 50 year old ship? Opening valves, lining up tanks, starting and stopping pumps, controlling flow, etc.

Does it even need to be an important skill set on future ships? Or alternately will methods be changed? (I genuinely don't know, just asking the question)

On a new modern civillian ship, all of this, plus reballasting as cargo is discharged, can be/is done from an integrated UMS display, graphically showing your tanks, pumps, valves,lines, etc, and it's done from the bridge, with an identical display/control system in the control room.

If you're used to manual operation of systems, it's going to be very hard to trust an automatic system, particulalry given the navy has a "navy" way of doing things, based on long standing training and procrdures, based on 50 year old ships, but that's some of the new tools a new ship brings to the table.

It's a great opportunity to examine the Navy way of doing things for future warships as well... do you need as many crew.to operate a future ship? Can you reduce numbers of certain trades to increase numbers of other trades? Etc.

They stopped making 50 year old ships 50 years ago.

Yes, l expect you're right.  Most if not all the valves will be capable of activation from the Liquid Cargo Office (or whatever name it becomes).

Taking care of the fuel and delivering it is more than just flipping levers or pushing buttons.  It needs to be tested on a regular basis to ensure its quality.  And you don't just start moving fluids willy nilly either.  That knowledge needs to be retained as there will no "Pumpman" when Protecteur arrives.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 105,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,052
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1502 on: November 07, 2017, 12:23:04 »
To be clear, I never said it wasn't.

Just that you're going to have a whole new ship to it with.

I got to experience the crew cockpit concept while on the hovercraft, it is the way of the future for the marine world. I notice that Davie is trying to sell the RCN on a modified offshore resupply vessel complete with DP.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 100,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,945
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1503 on: November 07, 2017, 13:22:39 »
Actually, Colin, I think what you have in mind is their MRNSV (Multi Role Naval Support Vessel), which is a modified version of their successful DPIII Subsea Construction Vessels they built for Cecon.

So it's not an offshore resupply vessel, and is in fact a lot larger vessel generally, at more than 425 feet and 4,200 tons displacement.

They are offering something that could be damn useful to the Navy (if we could man it) as it could be primarily used for submarine rescue and diving support - something we have not been able to do for ourselves since we disposed of HMCS CORMORANT - and as either a forward ship repair vessel or coastal resupply vessel - which could greatly enhance our Arctic deployment capabilities. It would also provide naval vessel capable of long distance at sea towing for our warships. Please note here that currently, if anything was to happen to one of our submarine in our waters or area of operation, we would have to call on the US Navy as our only option for reuse work.

Here is their brochure on the thing:

http://federalfleet.ca/2016/07/01/download-specification-for-mrn/

Again here: kudos to Davie (or Federal Fleet) for identifying a potential need that is also in their market niche and pro-actively offering it.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 105,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,052
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1504 on: November 07, 2017, 14:04:55 »
OGBD you are correct, going by memory on what is my Monday :)
 
It would be a good ship to have and would work as a minor Arctic AOR and allow us to provide some interesting support functions to the RCN and other friendly navies. Canada really does need a RFA which could man these ships and support the RCN, CCG and DFO.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 100,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,945
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1505 on: November 07, 2017, 14:51:11 »
Actually, Colin, we do have such a service. It's called CFAVS (Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessels Service). They are merchant mariners who operate our harbour vessels (though we have less and less of them), such as our tugs, fireboats, target towing vessels, etc. They used to be a larger organization when we had the harbour and coastal fuel tankers, the "blue boat" ferries and the research vessels CFAV Endeavour and CFAV Quest.

How much these people do and what vessels we give them is for us to decide, but the organization is there. For instance, if the RCN was to permanently acquire the iAOR, she could be transferred to the CFAV's. Similarly, a vessel such as the MRNSV proposed by Davie could easily be operated primarily by  the CFAV's again - with the RCN embarking only it's specialized personnel as required for each specific mission.

Offline kratz

    Happy 150th.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 226,123
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1506 on: November 07, 2017, 15:19:53 »
Actually, Colin, we had do have such a service. It's called CFAVS (Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessels Service). They are merchant mariners who operate our harbour vessels (though we have less and less of them), such as our tugs, fireboats, target towing vessels, etc. They used to be a larger organization when we had the harbour and coastal fuel tankers, the "blue boat" ferries and the research vessels CFAV Endeavour and CFAV Quest.

FTFY

ref: Government of Canada awards contract for disposal of navy ships, Aug 4, 2017

Quote
/snip

for the disposal of the Royal Canadian Navy’s former Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Preserver and Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessel (CFAV) Quest. The dismantling, for both ships, is expected to be completed by summer 2019.

/snip
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 100,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,945
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1507 on: November 07, 2017, 15:53:24 »
Did I miss something, Kratz?

Who currently operates the Glen and Ville tugs or the Nanoose range torpedo recovery vessels if not the CFAV? And does the West coast fleet not still operate CFAV Firebrand?

Offline kratz

    Happy 150th.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 226,123
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1508 on: November 07, 2017, 16:34:08 »
I can't speak for the other vessels, but I had heard the Quest was disposed of.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline jollyjacktar

    Looking forward to Christmas leave.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 136,242
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,666
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1509 on: November 07, 2017, 16:47:04 »
Quest is gone, yes.  ATH is the last one that is going to the wreckers.  Once she's turned over thats it until we start getting rid of CFP or MCDV.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 27,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,359
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1510 on: November 07, 2017, 16:54:28 »
All the tugs, yard boats, barges and recovery boats at Nanoose are operated by CFAVS pers. Its still relevant today and could be an even more valuable service. But this mantra of doing more with less is slowly killing this capability as well.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 105,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,052
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1511 on: November 07, 2017, 17:18:11 »
You could man the MRNSV with CFAVS/CCG personal with a budget split of say 60/40, so she does X amount of taskings with the navy and X with the CCG. No doubt both would want her at the same time in different places, but I expect such a service would work and bouncing her from the military to CCG to any other government tasking would mean we have the capacity and not necessarily to much strain on any one budget. They could also run a program where they host cadets from the various Marine Colleges around the country.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 12,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 499
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1512 on: November 07, 2017, 18:02:19 »
This is part of what I'm getting ar about the "new ship"

How much of this was a manual operation on a 50 year old ship? Opening valves, lining up tanks, starting and stopping pumps, controlling flow, etc.

Does it even need to be an important skill set on future ships? Or alternately will methods be changed? (I genuinely don't know, just asking the question)

On a new modern civillian ship, all of this, plus reballasting as cargo is discharged, can be/is done from an integrated UMS display, graphically showing your tanks, pumps, valves,lines, etc, and it's done from the bridge, with an identical display/control system in the control room.

If you're used to manual operation of systems, it's going to be very hard to trust an automatic system, particulalry given the navy has a "navy" way of doing things, based on long standing training and procrdures, based on 50 year old ships, but that's some of the new tools a new ship brings to the table.

It's a great opportunity to examine the Navy way of doing things for future warships as well... do you need as many crew.to operate a future ship? Can you reduce numbers of certain trades to increase numbers of other trades? Etc.

They stopped making 50 year old ships 50 years ago.

I can't speak to AORs, but have done RASs on both the 280s and the post HCM frigates. Those are both designed to have the valves remotely operated (the only major difference was the 280s had dials and push buttons and the frigates have a computer screen showing the same info).

In theory, you don't have to manually operate any of those valves. You always test them before each RAS. Despite that, you still have someone standing by when you are switching tanks to make sure the valves are opening and closing because if the remote system doesn't work, you can very quickly get a fuel spill in the time it takes to stop pumping due to the flow rates. Even if you aren't manually operating the valve, you need to understand the full system pretty well to avoid fuel going somewhere you don't want it to go, and when the flow rates are in the thousands of litres per minute, that's pretty critical.

And yes, we had tested valves that worked fine before hand and work perfectly for weeks glitch during a fueling. Watching a valve close signal 'time out' when it becomes non responsive is not a great feeling, and I don't think we'll ever be able to lose that skill set. Ironically the same people that tell you to trust the system and limit the use of personnel are the ones that would run you over the coals if you had a fuel spill without having valve sentries available that know what they are doing, as they are now optional in the SOPs (with a bunch of caveats).

Fortunately the manual operation of a pneumatically controlled valve is pretty easy, and the fuel tanks operate the same as a ballast tank, so it's pretty easy to train someone to be a roving valve sentry.

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 141
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1513 on: November 09, 2017, 06:54:32 »
To be fair i like this tanker as well,and about 100 million us cheaper then the Type 702/Berlin.

http://www.janes.com/article/66675/new-zealand-discloses-further-details-of-navy-s-new-fleet-tanker

I mean the price Canada is paying for those Berlins is ,in my eyes ridiculous.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 06:59:03 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 732,517
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,584
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1514 on: November 09, 2017, 11:08:00 »
To be fair i like this tanker as well,and about 100 million us cheaper then the Type 702/Berlin.

http://www.janes.com/article/66675/new-zealand-discloses-further-details-of-navy-s-new-fleet-tanker

I mean the price Canada is paying for those Berlins is ,in my eyes ridiculous.

The price of doing business in Canada and union wages.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 425
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1515 on: November 09, 2017, 11:28:37 »
To be fair i like this tanker as well,and about 100 million us cheaper then the Type 702/Berlin.

http://www.janes.com/article/66675/new-zealand-discloses-further-details-of-navy-s-new-fleet-tanker

I mean the price Canada is paying for those Berlins is ,in my eyes ridiculous.
Or look at the price the Brits are paying to build theirs in South Korea, although I now do agree that building there isn't the best idea, given current events.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 479,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,010
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1516 on: November 09, 2017, 12:36:11 »
..... in South Korea, although I now do agree that building there isn't the best idea, given current events.
Should we also divest ourselves of anything marked Samsung, Kia (and its parent, Hyundai), Daewoo.....?
Forgive me if I don't hide under the bed just yet. 
Imagine a world where people lacking the first clue about a topic refrained from posting anyway...

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 281
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1517 on: November 09, 2017, 12:46:15 »
You know South Korea is not the DPRK (North Korea), right?

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 479,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,010
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1518 on: November 09, 2017, 12:59:35 »
You know South Korea is not the DPRK (North Korea), right?
If that is meant for me, then yes, I have a reasonable grasp of geography. Thank you.
Did you know that the companies I mentioned -- Samsung, Kia, Hyundai, Daewoo -- are not  DPRK companies?

Apologies if my comment was too complex.

I don't believe we should refuse business contracts with SOUTH Korea merely because Trump and Kim are chirping at one another like grade-school retards.  The combination of economics' large contribution to bringing down the Berlin Wall, et al, plus the horror stories bordering on treason I've heard related to the quality of some Canadian shipyard's work suggest:
- we should help with Asian economies as a bulwark against PRC and DPRK, and
- we shouldn't unthinkingly throw good money after bad at Canadian shipyards until they get their crap together.
Imagine a world where people lacking the first clue about a topic refrained from posting anyway...

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 425
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1519 on: November 09, 2017, 13:01:25 »
Should we also divest ourselves of anything marked Samsung, Kia (and its parent, Hyundai), Daewoo.....?
Forgive me if I don't hide under the bed just yet.
You're forgiven. If anyone could start a war it's Trump. BTW, in the battle of Kapyong, fought by Canadians which saved the whole damn peninsula, an uncle of mine was on top of that hill. I do completely agree about the Canadian shipyards comment.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 281
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1520 on: November 13, 2017, 09:56:32 »
Davie pushing hard for a second one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVdJvcHUVk


Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,461
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1521 on: November 13, 2017, 11:18:09 »
Well wait to hear what sailors say once they get Resolve through her paces, but if the quality is there along with the fact that they delivered on time, and on budget, then Davie's work will speak for it self as to why we should get a second one. Would also be a shot at Seaspan if Davie could convert two ships into AOR's before steel was even cut on the berlins.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 11,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,355
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1522 on: November 13, 2017, 11:20:13 »
Davie pushing hard for a second one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVdJvcHUVk

That is the first corporate video where I have ever heard them use the term "bullshit"....and I loved it.   :nod:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline jollyjacktar

    Looking forward to Christmas leave.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 136,242
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,666
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1523 on: November 13, 2017, 11:26:53 »
They seem have forgotten about all those equalization payments they keep getting from the other provinces, not to mention Bombardier buyouts.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 100,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,945
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1524 on: November 13, 2017, 11:53:51 »
So Cdn Blackshirt likes the use of the word "bullshit", eh! Then let me use it to debunk once again the garbage that Jjt is dragging out here:

Here it is, Jjt: Your comment is bullshit! There is not a single province in Canada that pays equalization to the other provinces. None! Nada! Zero! Equalization is paid out of the Federal general fund, with everybody in Canada contributing to it on the exact same basis: individual income taxes, GST, corporate income taxes and customs and excises taxes. On that basis, BTW, Quebec and Ontario - even though they both get equalization payments - contribute 68% of Federal revenues. And, BTW also, "per capita" is the actual way to look at equalization because that is how it is calculated, and on that basis, the Atlantic provinces get three to six (P.E.I.) times more than Quebec or 5 to 8 times more than Ontario. Are you bitchin that Irving can't ask for Federal work in publicity videos?

Personally, considering the fact that no Berlin will hit the water or become operational for at least the next five years, why not give Davie another contract and get an other iAOR in 20 months from right now.

Also, for those not familiar with Canada's naval history, here is an interesting date: 1964. That is three years before construction of PRESERVER started. What is so important about that? It is the first year that the RCN indicated to the government of Canada that its requirement for support vessels called for four AORs. Though we never had more than three at a time, the RCN has never shied away from the fact that it has always called for four as the appropriate number.

Personally, my dream would be: Get Davie a contract for the next iAOR and in the meantime (20 months) acquire and produce all the plans and acquire long lead item to give them a contract to build two "power projection" vessels (Mistral's or Canberra's or equivalent) above and beyond the current CSC and Berlin's that Davie could get into right after the iAOR.