AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[MTShaw]

As Dartboards?  He asked hopefully...

Holy sh!t, they're seriously putting the Prime Minster's picture on military vessel. What happened to our monarch, or at least the commander of our military.

The longer I'm a liberal, the more conservative I become.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Strictly speaking, Asterix isn't military.  We're just leasing her services and crew.

 

[Patski]

At Least it's not a Trump Picture... I wanted to go see it in Levis's yard when they launched it, but during the week, it wasnt possible to get free time...

 

[Pusser]

Strictly speaking, Asterix isn't military.  We're just leasing her services and crew.

In that case, it should be a picture of the company president...

 

[Furniture]

Being a privately owned ship they could festoon it with pictures of My Little Pony, Carebears, etc.. and it bears no reflection on the CAF, or it's CoC.

If Davie wants to suck up to the PM let them. Maybe it will result in more ships for the federal fleet that they can't, or shouldn't have to wait for any longer.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just wondering what the appropriate protocol is for a picture of the sovereign since the ship is not an HMC ship.  Can it even fly an RCN ensign? 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

No. It flies the Canadian merchant ship ensign, which is the national flag.

And there is no protocol whatsoever on pictures of the Sovereign for merchant ships.

 

[Stoker]

No. It flies the Canadian merchant ship ensign, which is the national flag.

And there is no protocol whatsoever on pictures of the Sovereign for merchant ships.

Actually it flies the CNAV Blue Jack, the national flag and the Federal Fleet house flag.

 

[quadrapiper]

Just wondering what the appropriate protocol is for a picture of the sovereign since the ship is not an HMC ship.  Can it even fly an RCN ensign?

Would be a question of House custom - IIRC BC Ferries, for one, has a picture of HM onboard their larger vessels.

 

[Pusser]

Actually it flies the CNAV Blue Jack, the national flag and the Federal Fleet house flag.

But it's flying the auxiliary jack on the yardarm, not as a jack.

Personally, I think the CFAVs should go the same way HMC Ships did and switch their ensigns and jacks...

 

[Stoker]

But it's flying the auxiliary jack on the yardarm, not as a jack.

Personally, I think the CFAVs should got he same way HMC Ships did and switch their ensigns and jacks...

I don't know how they're flying that flags but I do know to use the Blue jack the RCN is amending the manual of ceremony.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Its a little more complicated than that, but it starts with the fact that the CFAV (CNAV? did it recently change from Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessel to Canadian Navy Auxiliary Vessel?) Jack has no existence in our system of national ship identification. And, no it is not as simple as amending the Manual of Ceremonial, as it is directed by the Canada Shipping Act, which would have to be amended.

In Canada, we have only two possible Ensign: The Naval Ensign, i.e. the RCN's White ensign, or the Merchant ship ensign, which is the National flag. This is different than the UK or Australia, where the identification of vessels allows for three categories: Vessels of her Majesty's Armed Forces (white Ensign), other vessels of her Majesty's government, or vessels in her service, or vessels commanded by members of the Naval Reserves (Merchant ships commanded by a merchant marine officer also holding commission in the NR) fly the Blue, all other merchant ships fly the red ensign.

The reason the RCN can fly its own Ensign is because the ships of the Armed Forces are exempt from the Canada Shipping Act, section 7 (1), which reads:

Exclusion

7 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act does not apply in respect of a vessel, facility or aircraft that belongs to the Canadian Forces or a foreign military force or in respect of any other vessel, facility or aircraft that is under the command, control or direction of the Canadian Forces.

A nuance here: this relates to the vessels of the Canadian Forces, not to all vessels of the Department of National Defence. The CFAV's are operated and under the Department of Defence, thus they are subject to the Canada Shipping Act. Therefore, they must fly the Canadian Flag, under Art 64 of the Act, which reads:

Right to fly Canadian flag

64 (1) A Canadian vessel has the right to fly the Canadian flag.

Obligation to fly flag

(2) The master of a Canadian vessel, other than one registered in the small vessel register, shall ensure that it flies the Canadian flag

(a) when signalled to do so by a government vessel or a vessel under the command of the Canadian Forces; or
(b) when entering or leaving, or while moored at or anchored in, a port.

So where does the "Blue" jack of the CFAV's come from? It is used as an identifier of the vessels who operate under tasking made by QHM. That's all it means, and that is why it will not be flown as an Ensign, but only as a jack, or at a yardarm. It is the same reason, for instance, that the Coast Guard has a "jack" but flies the National Flag as ensign.

In the present case, Asterix, a vessel belonging to the merchant service, is obliged to fly the Canadian National flag as her ensign. The CFAV's blue is only flown as secondary indicator that it works as tasked by QHM.

 

[Uzlu]

More Asterix info.  She may not be ready/able to go to RIMPAC this summer.  Lots of work to be done.

VAdm Lloyd said the new AOR will sail with Canadian Fleet Atlantic ships in the coming months, and as the summer nears it will meet up with West Coast warships for a deployment to the 2018 Rim of the Pacific Exercise off the coast of Hawaii.

http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/naval-history-made-mv-asterix-added-fleet/

 

[NavyShooter]

I was onboard on Monday.

Had a tour delivered by their XO to a group of us from BLog and N4Log. 

They're sailing.  They're going west.  That was the distinct 'impression' I was left with during the tour.

There is work ongoing onboard, but for the nay-sayers, I will observe, this ship sailed from Davie in Quebec in December, and has sailed since then several times.

We got a frigate back from ISI not that long ago, and not a single RCN ship that has come out of the ISI yard hands has been in 'ready to sail' condition.

The amount of work required to get a ship 'ready' after a 'refit' at ISI is tens of thousands of hours of work.

 

[Underway]

I was onboard on Monday.

Had a tour delivered by their XO to a group of us from BLog and N4Log. 

They're sailing.  They're going west.  That was the distinct 'impression' I was left with during the tour.

There is work ongoing onboard, but for the nay-sayers, I will observe, this ship sailed from Davie in Quebec in December, and has sailed since then several times.

We got a frigate back from ISI not that long ago, and not a single RCN ship that has come out of the ISI yard hands has been in 'ready to sail' condition.

The amount of work required to get a ship 'ready' after a 'refit' at ISI is tens of thousands of hours of work.

Which is my point.  Tens of thousands of hours of work.  Difference here is that the Asterix can sail, but can't do the job she's required to do.  Their last sail proved that she can't RAS worth a damn right now for various reasons.  Some of that may be teething, some of that is surely that she was rushed to meet a deadline for political points.  Thousands of hours of work are still required to get her ready for RIMPAC.  I expect she will be "ready enough" to go West if you catch my drift.  But as she is owned by FFS who has the final say on availability? If she was owned by the RCN we might be inclined to say, don't sail until we're happy you are fully operational.  FFS might say sail whether she is fully operational or not.

This is not to say they can't do good work and sort out the readiness issues.  There is certainly a lot of effort going into fixing all the identified problems judging by the lineup of contractors going on and off regularly.  80% capability from Asterix is still infinitely better then 0% capability from JSS currently.

 

[Stoker]

Which is my point.  Tens of thousands of hours of work.  Difference here is that the Asterix can sail, but can't do the job she's required to do.  Their last sail proved that she can't RAS worth a damn right now for various reasons.  Some of that may be teething, some of that is surely that she was rushed to meet a deadline for political points.  Thousands of hours of work are still required to get her ready for RIMPAC.  I expect she will be "ready enough" to go West if you catch my drift.  But as she is owned by FFS who has the final say on availability? If she was owned by the RCN we might be inclined to say, don't sail until we're happy you are fully operational.  FFS might say sail whether she is fully operational or not.

This is not to say they can't do good work and sort out the readiness issues.  There is certainly a lot of effort going into fixing all the identified problems judging by the lineup of contractors going on and off regularly.  80% capability from Asterix is still infinitely better then 0% capability from JSS currently.

Yes quite a bit of work to be done as evidence of the state of the ship, right now she's only certified for Cyclones.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yes quite a bit of work to be done as evidence of the state of the ship, right now she's only certified for Cyclones.

No, she is not certified for Cyclone. Or any particular helicopter. She has a general clearance to operate with military helicopters in fairly benign conditions.

 

[Stoker]

No, she is not certified for Cyclone.

Well you would know wouldn't you, whats in the media have led many to think otherwise.  I know there's still equipment to be installed.

It seems like Federal Fleet and Davie are saying all is good on that front.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/asterix-completes-royal-canadian-navy-trials-achieves-full-operational-capability-foc-671666423.html

 

[Baz]

Well you would know wouldn't you, whats in the media have led many to think otherwise.  I know there's still equipment to be installed.

It seems like Federal Fleet and Davie are saying all is good on that front.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/asterix-completes-royal-canadian-navy-trials-achieves-full-operational-capability-foc-671666423.html

Looking in from the outside, as I have *no* first hand information of the extent or how successful the Asterix trials were, my *observation* is that there may not be a formal agreement as to what Full Operational Capability means in the context of the announcement made in the quoted article.

Understanding what flight deck trials, shipborne helicopter operational limitations, and flight deck certifications actually mean and having been informally told what was actually conducted, and then extrapolating that to

No, she is not certified for Cyclone. Or any particular helicopter. She has a general clearance to operate with military helicopters in fairly benign conditions.

I would tend to believe it is not the same definition that would be used by the RCN and RCAF when it comes to Air Ops.

Then seeing as the quoted article states

These exercises have included everything from dual RAS operations to helicopter landing, take-off and vertical replenishment trials

I would tend to make the deduction that this definition of FOC is inclusive for much of the capabilities right now; ie the contractor has declared that it is FOC "for what they are responsible for" but the Operational customer (the RCN) has not made such an announcement.

This is in no way a bad thing per se; it just means (to me) that due diligence on the part of the RCN and RCAF is still going on, regardless of how the contractor views it.  The ship may in fact be very capable in the fullness of time but the contractor may not be using certain terms the way the customer would in order to make it look like a more spectacular result.

As I said, just looking in from the outside...

 

[Stoker]

Looking in from the outside, as I have *no* first hand information of the extent or how successful the Asterix trials were, my *observation* is that there may not be a formal agreement as to what Full Operational Capability means in the context of the announcement made in the quoted article.

Understanding what flight deck trials, shipborne helicopter operational limitations, and flight deck certifications actually mean and having been informally told what was actually conducted, and then extrapolating that toI would tend to believe it is not the same definition that would be used by the RCN and RCAF when it comes to Air Ops.

Then seeing as the quoted article states  I would tend to make the deduction that this definition of FOC is inclusive for much of the capabilities right now; ie the contractor has declared that it is FOC "for what they are responsible for" but the Operational customer (the RCN) has not made such an announcement.

This is in no way a bad thing per se; it just means (to me) that due diligence on the part of the RCN and RCAF is still going on, regardless of how the contractor views it.  The ship may in fact be very capable in the fullness of time but the contractor may not be using certain terms the way the customer would in order to make it look like a more spectacular result.

As I said, just looking in from the outside...

If you look at most of the info that comes out about Asterix its sources from Federal Fleet and Davie. Some is true and some has an element of truth about it and some is totally out to lunch.