AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)
- Thread starter Ex-Dragoon
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
kratz said:
I tried to support my comments regarding AOR, specifically Asterix and Obelix with Facts taking from other sources. Sadly they belonged to another source and after posted they were correctly deleted by Admin
I agree with you that making an objective capability comparison between Asterix Vs JSS will make a compelling case in how to spend CAD. For now, just relying in Davie info http://federalfleet.ca/2017/09/12/download-the-defsec-2017-presentation/ - Page 15 in how JSS is not in compliance with latest NATO RAS std. ATP-16 :
2A-7 2A20 Rigs in Use by Nations...
6-11 0626 Transfer of Water...
6-18 0630 Fuel STREAM Rig...
6-18 0631 Rigging the Delivering Ship for Fuel STREAM Rig ...
6-23 0632 Passing, Tending, and Recovering the Rig...
6-24 0633 Rigging the Receiving Ship for Fuel STREAM ...
6-30 0634 Connecting and Disconnecting the Rig ...
6-30 0635 Receiving Hose Couplings Other than Probe...
6-32 0636 Precautions Against Loss of Fuel ...
6-34 0637 Blowing Through Hose Procedures ...
6-34 0640 Convoy Escort Replenishment ...6
-36 0641 Necessity for Rapid Fueling ...
6-36 0642 Fueling Course and Speed...
6-36 0643 Station Keeping ...
6-36 0644 Emergency Breakaway...
6-38 0645 Standard Fueling Equipment ...
6-38 0650 Astern Fueling by Float Method ...
6-38 0651 Equipment and Procedures for Converted Merchant Tankers...
6-38 0652 Astern Hose Cleanout System ...
6-38 0660 Astern Fueling Using the NATO 4 Fueling Rig ...
6-48 0661 Communications During Astern Refueling ...
6-48 0662 Maneuvering During Astern Refueling ...
6-48 0663 General Requirements for Astern Refueling ...6-48 0664 Rig Variations ...
6-49 0665 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Single Hose, No Automatic Winch) ...
6-49 0666 Rig Assembly and Preparations (Double or Single Hose, Automatic Winch) ...
6-51 0667 Using the Float Method...6-51 0670 Replenishment of Fuel and Water in Harbor ...
6-51 0671–0684 Nation-Specific Transfer of Liquids ...
6-52 ANNEX 6A—MERCHANT TANKER FUELING BY THE ASTERN METHOD 6A10 Introduction ...
It includes the standard requirements and procedures that have been agreed to by NATO nations. NATO nations have agreed that all practicable assistance and facilities shall be provided to warships and certain auxiliaries of the NATO navies.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Chief Stoker said:
Is not the idea to replace Kingston by AOPS hence the Container deck capability to allow flexibility for Antisubmarine warfare among others?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
jollyjacktar said:
Agreed.
That is what the current agreement with Federal Fleet Services was done...Can we, in the future after Lease is over and ship transfer to RCN, be able to cover all crew with own Navy personnel? Keeping Knowledge and ensuring long term Skills
- Reaction score
- 709
- Points
- 1,160
alexanderpeterson said:
Don't believe everything you read on Federal Fleets page. Asterix has one main engine and one shaft line to JSS's two and Asterix has a decade old hull being reused. It fills our immediate requirements now.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Chief Stoker said:
The one performed by Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone and the Containerized version of the deep sea Thales MMS mechanical mine sweeping system, the route survey system or the Sutec remotely operated vehicle (ROV) mine inspection system.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Chief Stoker said:
I would like to see 2 RAS instead of 1 on JSS...remember the original design by BMT? Also the TAG price for each JSS ship is a little much, don't you think? The "original" Asterix shape was a nice ship to the eye
- Reaction score
- 709
- Points
- 1,160
alexanderpeterson said:
The Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone won't be embarked in the Arctic, a CCG helo will be doing that and there is no room for storage of anti sub torpedoes onboard. The Thales system has been gone for some years now. We still have route survey and actually Harry Dewolf won't be using that but they will be using a multi echo mapping payload for hydrographic work. As for the other mine warfare payloads, the class doesn't have degausing unlike the Kingston Class.
- Reaction score
- 709
- Points
- 1,160
alexanderpeterson said:
It actually has 4 RAS stations to 2 on the PROTECTEUR Class. This means no port and stbd duel RAS. Its a nice to have but seems to have not caused us any heartache over the years. The price is the price for a purpose built AOR that's actually new. I agree that it brings exciting capability but again there's a reason why we're only renting it.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
alexanderpeterson said:
No. One glaring mistake is that no one is keeping the role my legacy trade did alive with the Asterix. As a HT we were the custodians of the cargo fuel it was our job to see that it came on board from the refinery or other source, was taken care of while on board and delivered to our fleet during RAS and alongside fuellings. This function is being done by the civilian crew and all of what is now Mar Tech territory for that matter. Those of us who were Tanker Wankers are leaving and that knowledge leaves with us. A fail. In my opinion.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Resolve Class AOR
Cons: One Main Engine, One Main Shaft, Old Hull, No Phalanx*, Civilian Crew, No Compartmentalized???
Pros: Interim measure, Lower Cost, 4 RAS, Nice shape (at least original Asterix Design)
Berlin Class Modified (V 3.0)
Cons: COST, Old design, 2 RAS, Not so nice shape ;D (nothing bad about having an old merchant ship look), Lead Time, we can lay waste an opportunity to have a "real" JSS like Karel Doorman or an Amphibious Ship for that cost,
Pros: Permanent Measure, Redundancy, real AOR design, New Canadian Ship - not lease-, AA fitted, RCN Personnel (all trades ???)
It seems to me that there could be a lost one time generation chance to have built a next gen Navy...sorry to be reiterative but 20 years ago this started as a truly JSS and we are having a great AOR...what you all think?
Cons: One Main Engine, One Main Shaft, Old Hull, No Phalanx*, Civilian Crew, No Compartmentalized???
Pros: Interim measure, Lower Cost, 4 RAS, Nice shape (at least original Asterix Design)
Berlin Class Modified (V 3.0)
Cons: COST, Old design, 2 RAS, Not so nice shape ;D (nothing bad about having an old merchant ship look), Lead Time, we can lay waste an opportunity to have a "real" JSS like Karel Doorman or an Amphibious Ship for that cost,
Pros: Permanent Measure, Redundancy, real AOR design, New Canadian Ship - not lease-, AA fitted, RCN Personnel (all trades ???)
It seems to me that there could be a lost one time generation chance to have built a next gen Navy...sorry to be reiterative but 20 years ago this started as a truly JSS and we are having a great AOR...what you all think?
Attachments
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
On the previous reply I have attached a pic comparison between Original Asterix Design and as - built ship. The original one appears more modern Aegis like ship
For how Canada would use them, we would never even need to look in the direction of an LHD.SeaKingTacco said:
Lots of experts on this site. Many self proclaimed and some actual. Some people who may not be directly involved might know something another person may not have thought of. Or they may stir up thoughts outside the box.
I remember a few years ago people jumping all over me about the Bell CH-146 Griffon and not being able to deploy it to Afghanistan. The so called experts claimed no way no how could that helicopter be used in the conditions it would be subjected to
It was used and it did a decent job. Not ideal but it was used.
So when you question a persons expertise on a subject you should explain yours.
There are far to many experts. Some may have direct, indirect or none at all knowledge of what is going on.
As for people saying how bad it is to have lost the Military side of AOR fleet. Look at the US Military, very few of their AORs are staffed by full Military crews, they seem to work pretty well.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
CTD said:
So, you're a Tanker guy then too in addition to being a sage on the Griffon, are you? How many years did you sail doing RAS work on PRE, PRO or PROVIDER? I've got over 9 years. I'm not an expert but l do know my swim lane reasonably well.
There won't be civilian sailors on the PRO Class. Tell me, please do, how the knowledge that is not being covered off on Asterix will be retained?
And lastly, the US ships you speak of are excellent. Yes they are, agreed. But they would not go into the box in the Gulf, we were the only country to do so. There are limitations to where the civilians will go.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,454
- Points
- 1,010
You are quite correct, Jjt, that the American supply ships did not go into the box in the Gulf. But look at your own post: We, Canada, were the only ones to do so.
As I have said before, it is not the technical capabilities of the supply ships that make the difference - it is the institutional decisions on force employment that make the difference. We are the only ones anywhere who have elected to take AOR's into more dangerous waters. No one else has, whether their supply ships are manned fully or not by uniformed personnel.
Therefore, there is nothing preventing us from having supply ships manned partially or totally by civilians, so long as we accept to change our employment of those ships to be in line with what everybody else in the world does.
Now, don't get me wrong - I am NOT advocating such a route. I like the fact that we can do some things that no one else can (or will), because it buys Canada credits from our allies that lead to things like the fact that Canada was the only participating Nation in the Gulf War that the US military gave a Theatre command, and it was wholly because of our AOR's capabilities and employment scheme.
As I have said before, it is not the technical capabilities of the supply ships that make the difference - it is the institutional decisions on force employment that make the difference. We are the only ones anywhere who have elected to take AOR's into more dangerous waters. No one else has, whether their supply ships are manned fully or not by uniformed personnel.
Therefore, there is nothing preventing us from having supply ships manned partially or totally by civilians, so long as we accept to change our employment of those ships to be in line with what everybody else in the world does.
Now, don't get me wrong - I am NOT advocating such a route. I like the fact that we can do some things that no one else can (or will), because it buys Canada credits from our allies that lead to things like the fact that Canada was the only participating Nation in the Gulf War that the US military gave a Theatre command, and it was wholly because of our AOR's capabilities and employment scheme.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Good points, OGDB. Thank you.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,294
- Points
- 1,160
Some onboard video to be found on Federal Fleet Service Twitter feed
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1366294&binId=1.1145745&playlistPageNum=1
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1366294&binId=1.1145745&playlistPageNum=1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Notice the design differences between aft and forward RAS bridge? Is it because one of them came from Protecteur Ships and the other is brand new?
Similar threads
