Author Topic: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)  (Read 618337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 377
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1525 on: November 13, 2017, 12:46:18 »
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.

That would be my dream as well; for you and I this is old ground.  *However* I have some questions for you if that were to come to fruition:
- Would you accept the two "power projection" vessels being the flag ships?
- If yes, would you accept giving all the CSC the capability to carry the AD required of the Iroquois replacement, and therefore make them all the same?
- How many CSC would you then consider the minimum and the optimum?

My answers:
- yes
- yes
- 6-8 min, 10-12 optimum

In effect, trade off CSC hulls for "power projection."

One step farther, what about putting the two "power projection" hulls plus two Resolve hulls on the East Coast, and then the 2 Berlins plus two flag capable CSCs on the West Coast, plus say 8-10 frigates? This would give us the capability to have a small "power projection" task group continually available on the East Coast, and a smaller task group continuously available on the West Coast, with some "power projection" capability in the Berlins.  In a major crisis the East and West Task groups could marry up on station, giving a "power projection" and joint task force flag, a Maritime flag, a on station supply (Berlin), a supply runner (Resolve, with the Berlin coming out to meet if force protection requires it), and 3-4 escorts.

Given that we would have to man the "power projection" hulls, I'm just curious on your thoughts.

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 #1526 on: November 13, 2017, 13:11:25 »
OGBD, sorry to have hit a nerve there.  My point is that everybody in this country helps each other.  Region to region.  They came across to me that QC was getting shafted.  My counter is they also get benefits as do we all.  The equalization payments come from the Feds whom get it from the group.  Helping companies like Bombardier help the province as a whole.  We all benefit from having a stronger navy regardless of who builds it.  They're not alone in the wilderness, unloved and forgotten.  That's how l view it, if you don't agree.  So be it.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,222
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1527 on: November 13, 2017, 14:48:20 »
How do Mistrals /Canberra etc serve the  "soft power, high skill expertise" the government is peddling right now. Ships like that are designed to bring a fight to the enemy, (of which we apparently have exactly 0). Leadmark 2050 briefly mentions a "peace operations support ship" complete with aerial and seaborne "connectors" after 2035, but is also very clear no assault capabilities are in contemplation.  Basically, what they are suggesting is a fancy ferry with a well deck and maybe a helo pad.

 Note: I would like to see LHD/LPD ships as well for the RCN, but chances are next to zero for that.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 122,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,446
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1528 on: November 13, 2017, 14:50:16 »
One step farther, what about putting the two "power projection" hulls plus two Resolve hulls on the East Coast, and then the 2 Berlins plus two flag capable CSCs on the West Coast, plus say 8-10 frigates? This would give us the capability to have a small "power projection" task group continually available on the East Coast, and a smaller task group continuously available on the West Coast, with some "power projection" capability in the Berlins.  In a major crisis the East and West Task groups could marry up on station, giving a "power projection" and joint task force flag, a Maritime flag, a on station supply (Berlin), a supply runner (Resolve, with the Berlin coming out to meet if force protection requires it), and 3-4 escorts.

I know you're asking OGBD, but I'll chime in.  I agree with all of your assertions, but would argue that the "power projection" ships need to go on the Pacific.  There is more open water for them to use/manoeuvre, more areas of interest to access, and a geopolitical area where they'd more likely be called for.  Sailing a "power projection ship" into the Baltic or Black Sea just doesn't seem like a good idea.  There is a reason the USN/USMC weights its amphibious elements to the Pacific by about a ratio of 3:2.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

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 #1529 on: November 14, 2017, 10:36:08 »
I can understand Davie wanting to keep their people employed, they aren't shy about letting others lose their jobs for that to happen. I would love to see 2 Resolve class AORs and 2 "power projection" vessels, as to crewing, the base crew of a Mistral is slightly less than that of Tribal, had we gotten the 2 Mistrals that were built, we could have easily manned them at the time, by the time we would get them now I not sure that would be possible. Mind you they would be modern and roomy and that might attract more people. The majority of the delays for the NSPS has been on the government side. Out here in the west coast we saw very few government contracts and Seaspan had to exist purely on private contracts for a long time.

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 #1530 on: November 14, 2017, 11:34:16 »
I would love to see 2 Resolve class AORs and 2 "power projection" vessels, as to crewing, the base crew of a Mistral is slightly less than that of Tribal, had we gotten the 2 Mistrals that were built, we could have easily manned them at the time, by the time we would get them now I not sure that would be possible.

Even at the time it wasn't possible and we were playing the shell game of pier head jumps to man what we have, its significantly worse.
+300 « Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 11:47:25 by Chief Stoker »
"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 MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,461
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1531 on: November 14, 2017, 11:38:49 »
Even at the time it wasn't possible and we were playing the shell game of pier head jumps to man what we have, it significantly worse.

Would it be accurate to say then as of right now without significant uptake in recruitment we won't be able to man the new fleet?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

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 #1532 on: November 14, 2017, 11:45:42 »
Would it be accurate to say then as of right now without significant uptake in recruitment we won't be able to man the new fleet?

I think we can, that is why the new ships will have more automation and a significant crew reduction. The RCN is trialing this now.
"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 Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,919
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1533 on: November 14, 2017, 12:45:33 »
Thanks Chief....

A continuing source of aggravation that I have routinely expressed is the emphasis by some on body-count in the navy when, to my way of thinking, the appropriate parameters are hull-count, sensor-coverage and throw-weight.

Hotel space takes up volume which drives up costs.
Bodies drive up training costs and pension costs.
Time at sea drives up retention costs.

It is apparently/obviously hard to recruit and retain which means packages get more expensive and contracts get shorter, which drive up costs.

All of those rising personnel costs, with a fixed budget, drive down procurement funds and operating funds - which reduces hulls - which reduces coverage.

As much as it is difficult to accept a different way of doing business a viable navy will have to drastically reduce the number of berths per hull.  Even if that means "giving up the ship".
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 100,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,945
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1534 on: November 14, 2017, 16:28:48 »
If anybody here has reasonable command of French,here is link to the documentary that  the French CBC did on Sunday (go to 12 November episode) on the Asterix. Interesting because it is the first time that we see and get the views of the naval architect behind the transformation. And for those who think that the CF second language training is a waste ... see what happens when you are put in a situation where you get to use your skill for a while: Spencer's French is pretty good - with little "Englishman" accent left in this one.

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/decouverte/site

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 #1535 on: November 21, 2017, 17:23:04 »
The Brits are getting a similar looking ship as our Resolve Class, although I think it's more oriented to being a tanker than all round replenishment ship.


https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/10814-The-UK-Royal-Fleet-Auxiliarys-Tide-Class-Tankers-Delivered-Powered-by-GE


https://static.vesselfinder.net/images/media/284cc9249c02557c9a51821033acd365.jpg

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 425
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1536 on: November 21, 2017, 19:02:03 »
The Brits are getting a similar looking ship as our Resolve Class, although I think it's more oriented to being a tanker than all round replenishment ship.


https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/10814-The-UK-Royal-Fleet-Auxiliarys-Tide-Class-Tankers-Delivered-Powered-by-GE


https://static.vesselfinder.net/images/media/284cc9249c02557c9a51821033acd365.jpg
Great looking ships and the price was so good. We could have had 2 per coast and saved lots of money. There is a replenishment version.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 22:37:29 by AlexanderM »

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 100,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,945
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1537 on: November 21, 2017, 19:32:29 »
No we couldn't have saved money, nor would it be useful to have two per coast.

They are tanker - that's it - nothing more. They carry and transfer fuel, avgas and some water and lube oil in drums. That's it. They have a very, very, very limited storage capacity for cargo, of a maximum of eight 20 foot containers. That's insignificant. No capacity to handle heavy cargo, no capacity for heavy underway jackstay. and a very small helo hangar for  single medium helicopter (though they can land up to a Chinook on deck).

No cold storage or freezers or food or dry good stores, no ammunition stores and transfer capability, no general stores for aviation or ship's parts. No medical facility, no dental facility, no "tween-deck" for stowage of large cargo or army vehicles/materiel or aid to civil power/disaster relief operations, no heavy cranes, no landing/cargo boats of any sort. No capacity to act as a host ship for civilian evacuations, etc. etc.

Need I go on? Wrong ships for Canada - OK for the UK because they have a full set of other types of support vessels, they don't travel as far as we do (usually), and they have a full amphibious capability in other types of ships.
 

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 56,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,684
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1538 on: December 02, 2017, 12:38:52 »
Davie plays the lay-offs card too--though completely self-interested its proposal makes sense, note the Seaspan JSS timeline now:

Quote
Chantier Davie won’t take ‘no’ for an answer

Chantier Davie in Lévis, across the St. Lawrence from Quebec City, will be forced to lay off 800 shipyard workers before Christmas without a new contract to build a second supply vessel for the Canadian navy.

“We’re not taking no for an answer on that,” Davie CEO Alex Vicefield said in a telephone interview on Thursday, after Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan told Le Journal de Québec last week through his press attaché that the government does not plan to buy a second supply ship.

In an email response Thursday, Sajjan’s press attaché Bryne Furlong reiterated that, “Navy and Coast Guard supply requirements have been extensively studied and are subject to long-term planning, which does not include a second supply vessel‎.”

The layoffs have begun, now that the Davie workforce has completed — on time and on budget — conversion of the German-built container ship Asterix into a supply ship to deliver fuel, water, food and supplies to the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy.

Davie’s plan now is the $600 million conversion of the Obelix, a sister ship to the Asterix, into the navy’s second supply ship. Vicefield said Ottawa’s plan calls for paying $2 billion each for two new supply vessels, the first of which will only be available 10 years from now.

“Why do we need to build these ships for $2 billion each?” Vicefield asked, noting the Asterix and Obelix cost $600 million each and are superior vessels.

“I’m not a political activist but we believe in the project and we delivered,” Vicefield said.

In 2011, the Harper government unveiled its National Shipbuilding Procurement Program, awarding $38-billion in contracts to build ships for the Navy and Coast Guard to Irving Shipbuilding Inc. of Halifax and Seaspan Shipbuilding of Vancouver.

Davie, emerging from bankruptcy at the time, is Canada’s largest shipyard and was excluded.

Cost estimates have risen since then, Vicefield noted, with the cost ballooning to over $100 billion. And in the six years since the plan was announced, the two winning shipyards have delivered no ships.

Officially, Seaspan is to launch its first replacement supply ship in 2021.

But Vicefield noted that Andy Smith, the official responsible for shipbuilding in the federal department of fisheries and oceans, told a Commons committee Nov. 7 that Seaspan has a backlog of three ships to build before work on the first supply ship can begin in 2023, for delivery in 2027 [emphasis added]...

Vicefield regards the Harper government’s plans, renamed by the Liberal government as the National Shipbuilding Strategy, as “mind-boggling” and “a bit of a joke.”

And he believes Canada can have three shipyards, including Davie, to build and maintain naval and Coast Guard vessels.

“There are about 50 large ships that need replacing,” he said, noting the average age of the Coast Guard fleet is 40 years [emphasis added]. “So there is enough work for sure for three shipyards for the next 30 years.”

“We haven’t been pushing against the National Shipbuilding Strategy,” Vicefield said. “I think it is going to fall on its own.”

Irving, which is now building ships in Romania, and Seaspan, which has ordered two ferries to be built in Turkey [!!! emphasis added], are defending the plan, and so far have political support [Quebec is giving Davie loud political support too, and Liberals want more seats there]....
https://ipolitics.ca/article/chantier-davie-wont-take-no-answer/

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 13:31:05 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 56,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,684
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1539 on: December 02, 2017, 17:48:42 »
Tweet by Quebec premier:
https://twitter.com/phcouillard/status/937031199557607424

Quote
Philippe Couillard‏ @phcouillard

Je serai parmi vous demain [Dec. 3] pour marcher en solidarité avec les 800 travailleurs et leur famille. Montrons notre confiance en leur savoir-faire et demandons l’équité pour @chantierdavie et les chantiers navals du #Qc. #PolQc

Take that, Justin Trudeau et al.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

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 #1540 on: December 04, 2017, 10:26:42 »
I think we can, that is why the new ships will have more automation and a significant crew reduction. The RCN is trialing this now.

How do you think brand new ships would affect morale and retention? The AOP's will bring more room for the sailors and different missions.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 56,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,684
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1541 on: December 07, 2017, 12:11:23 »
Note what head of Davie says about JSS delivery dates--would push new CCG icebreaker from Seaspan out to end of 2020s:

Quote
Opinion: Canada's flawed shipbuilding strategy needs to be righted
...
The alarm bells should have been ringing last month when, in a written response to a parliamentary committee, the associate deputy minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Kevin Stringer, declared that the actual delivery dates for all ships to be built under the strategy at Seaspan’s shipyard in Vancouver are now secret and cannot be released, even to members of Parliament.

This unusual response came after the new deputy commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Andy Smith, revealed that Seaspan will not be able to start construction of the navy’s ships until it has completed four other ships for the Coast Guard. The dates he provided paint an entirely different story to what the public has previously been told and, even in a best-case scenario, means construction of the support ships will begin no earlier than 2023, with the first ship delivered in 2026 [emphasis added].

The Department of National Defence continues to maintain the first joint support ship from Seaspan will be ready by 2021. But not a single ship has been delivered in the six years since the strategy was launched, and now we are to believe the Vancouver shipyard will suddenly deliver five ships in four years.

With Davie currently contracted to provide only one “interim” naval support ship until the Joint Support Ships are ready — a ship being delivered this month — Canada will not be able to deliver on its recently published defence policy, which requires having a naval support ship on each coast, for at least another decade.

To cover the 10-year gap, Davie has offered to build [actually convert] and lease to the navy a second naval support ship. But accepting our offer would, it seems, be too painful an admission for senior bureaucrats who were the proud architects of the current strategy...

Alex Vicefield is chairman of Davie Shipbuilding in Lévis
http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-canadas-flawed-shipbuilding-strategy-needs-to-be-righted

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

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 #1542 on: December 07, 2017, 12:19:44 »
How do you think brand new ships would affect morale and retention? The AOP's will bring more room for the sailors and different missions.

I think initially it will help but when you end of spending 5 months in the Arctic year after year it won't be so attractive, much like MCDV's.
"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 Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 100,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,945
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1543 on: December 07, 2017, 13:18:21 »
I understood that they were going to change crew mid-season when up North.

Let's remember that just because there will be 5 AOPS, you are still unlikely to find all five of them up North at the same time. I suspect two or three only at any given time.

Moreover, I suspect that since the Northern season corresponds in good part with the summer, it will be possible to substitute a number of "summer-employed" reservists in many of the trades (not the engineering ones, however, and unfortunately) such as Bosn, NciOp, Navcoms, cooks and even for some NWO's. These reservists are usually college or university students and won't have the problems associated with family separation. I know that when I was a student and doing four months at a time on the reserve vessels, I would have jumped at the possibility of being paid to go up North with a vessel. Heck! People pay good money for the experience and our full summers were spent away from home anyway.

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 #1544 on: December 07, 2017, 13:54:09 »
I understood that they were going to change crew mid-season when up North.

Let's remember that just because there will be 5 AOPS, you are still unlikely to find all five of them up North at the same time. I suspect two or three only at any given time.

Moreover, I suspect that since the Northern season corresponds in good part with the summer, it will be possible to substitute a number of "summer-employed" reservists in many of the trades (not the engineering ones, however, and unfortunately) such as Bosn, NciOp, Navcoms, cooks and even for some NWO's. These reservists are usually college or university students and won't have the problems associated with family separation. I know that when I was a student and doing four months at a time on the reserve vessels, I would have jumped at the possibility of being paid to go up North with a vessel. Heck! People pay good money for the experience and our full summers were spent away from home anyway.

They might and might not as crewing will be tight. Probably three at the same time with Kingston Class ships as well,and no ports to speak of. There is plans for at least 10 to 12 billets per ship to be reservists.
"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 Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,919
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1545 on: December 07, 2017, 17:06:59 »
I understand that the AOPS accommodation, at 85, is unchanged from the 2012 offerings of STX. 

On the other hand the intended crew has expanded from 45 to 65.  Can the ships be sailed with crews of 45?  And what does that do to concerns over manning?

I understand Svalbard sails with a sea crew of about 50 from a total crew of about 75 with a regular rotation of half the crew so as to maintain continuity.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

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 #1546 on: December 07, 2017, 17:12:29 »
I understand that the AOPS accommodation, at 85, is unchanged from the 2012 offerings of STX. 

On the other hand the intended crew has expanded from 45 to 65.  Can the ships be sailed with crews of 45?  And what does that do to concerns over manning?

I understand Svalbard sails with a sea crew of about 50 from a total crew of about 75 with a regular rotation of half the crew so as to maintain continuity.

Crewing as I understand it is still evolving, the ship is highly automated from what I can gather. I was through her some time ago and there is a 20 man mess as well as regular crew accommodations. I really don't know where they will get the crew from although the Kingston Class will eventually reduce in crew size at some point. the Kingston Class wuill be used as a feeder for the Class as it is a Diesel Electric ship and will be operated similarly.
"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 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 #1547 on: December 08, 2017, 10:35:44 »
Note what head of Davie says about JSS delivery dates--would push new CCG icebreaker from Seaspan out to end of 2020s:

Mark
Ottawa

Seaspan will launch the first OFSV Dec 12th, the two others are moving along quickly. There is a delay in the Science Vessel, likely due to design issue around stability. My understanding is that the JSS was to start next. They could start on components of it, when the last OFSV is completing and the SV is also coming together. SS has access to two other facilities, one in Esqiumalt and the other in Vancouver they can use as well.   

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,919
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
« Reply #1548 on: December 08, 2017, 12:05:36 »
OOSV stability issues?  Is that necessitating a redesign in the same way the OFSVs? 

And what is the common point of origin requiring these redesigns?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"