AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Maxman1]

Oh well, just a question. I just saw the present hull on a LHD type as advantageous to taking it into northern waters. Many more options exist for deploying land forces with a ship than via C130 or C17.

A few Mistral class LHDs would provide that capability many times over.

AOR is a very different role than a landing ship. I would like to see a LST type vessel, mainly for domestic northern ops, manned mainly by Fleet Auxiliary. I do wish we had gotten the two Mistrals that had been offered to us. It would have changed how the RCN operates and what it could do. The LST would cost you one of the Kingston replacements, but a Mistral type landing ship will definitely cost you a CSC

A Round Table class LST would fit the bill.

 

[Stoker]

AOR is a very different role than a landing ship. I would like to see a LST type vessel, mainly for domestic northern ops, manned mainly by Fleet Auxiliary. I do wish we had gotten the two Mistrals that had been offered to us. It would have changed how the RCN operates and what it could do. The LST would cost you one of the Kingston replacements, but a Mistral type landing ship will definitely cost you a CSC

They would be sitting along side somewhere with no crew if we had a place to berth them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Point Class RoRo ferry chartered to MOD and conducting civilian trade
USNS special forces ship converted from RoRo ferry similar to Point Class
Marine Atlantic MV Highlanders RoRo ferry similar to those used in the Baltic, North and Irish seas for civilian traffic and military traffic.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Sadly, if CANSOFCOM wanted such a ship to be crewed with their own private navy, it would be provided tomorrow.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

While I agree with your statement, Cloud Cover, I cannot agree with the sentiment.

I know I am repeating myself, but the idea of the RCN (or worse the naval reserve) having amphibious ships keeps recurring here. But having phibs is not a naval matter, it is an Army matter. As long as the Canadian Army does not indicate to the Government that they wish to be able to attack from the sea and provide for the funding for its components to train and exercise that capability with sufficient frequency to remain current in it, the Navy will have no part of this capability. Hence why Chief Stoker above states - correctly if there is no demand for it from the Army - that such ships would just sit alongside, uncrewed.

When the Army wants it, then we'll get the ships. Meanwhile, don't foist the capability on the RCN.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Exactly.

 

[Baz]

No…no…no…for the love of god, no…

They would be sitting along side somewhere with no crew if we had a place to berth them.

When the Army wants it, then we'll get the ships. Meanwhile, don't foist the capability on the RCN.

This, this, and this.

I too bemoan the missed opportunity to get the Mistrals. I also wish that the Karel Doorman class had been available when we were shopping for JSS vice an AOR (which is what the Berlins are). I think they would be perfectly suited to HADR as Canada has no need for Amphibs (or at least that is what the Army thinks). They would also make great helo carriers for an ASW task group, including second line (if we had enough helos, crews, maintainers, and a second line concept).

However, it has taken us far too long to get working on the replacements for the AORs to second guess it now.

 

[Halifax Tar]

They would be sitting along side somewhere with no crew if we had a place to berth them.

While I agree with your statement, Cloud Cover, I cannot agree with the sentiment.

I know I am repeating myself, but the idea of the RCN (or worse the naval reserve) having amphibious ships keeps recurring here. But having phibs is not a naval matter, it is an Army matter. As long as the Canadian Army does not indicate to the Government that they wish to be able to attack from the sea and provide for the funding for its components to train and exercise that capability with sufficient frequency to remain current in it, the Navy will have no part of this capability. Hence why Chief Stoker above states - correctly if there is no demand for it from the Army - that such ships would just sit alongside, uncrewed.

When the Army wants it, then we'll get the ships. Meanwhile, don't foist the capability on the RCN.

I mean, if you look at the primary role that the RCN will be employed in in war time its sheep dogging material and people, safely, from NA to the theatre. The RCN is basically one big Logistics FP organization.

We don't take and hold land, we get the folks and toys into place who do that; and we guarantee their sustainment; by force of violence. Or at least we should.

 

[FSTO]

While I agree with your statement, Cloud Cover, I cannot agree with the sentiment.

I know I am repeating myself, but the idea of the RCN (or worse the naval reserve) having amphibious ships keeps recurring here. But having phibs is not a naval matter, it is an Army matter. As long as the Canadian Army does not indicate to the Government that they wish to be able to attack from the sea and provide for the funding for its components to train and exercise that capability with sufficient frequency to remain current in it, the Navy will have no part of this capability. Hence why Chief Stoker above states - correctly if there is no demand for it from the Army - that such ships would just sit alongside, uncrewed.

When the Army wants it, then we'll get the ships. Meanwhile, don't foist the capability on the RCN.

ALSC was dependent on Army and Air Force ponying up money and PYs. Didn’t happen and that’s why we are getting new AORs in 2025 vice 2015.

 

[Kirkhill]

While I agree with your statement, Cloud Cover, I cannot agree with the sentiment.

I know I am repeating myself, but the idea of the RCN (or worse the naval reserve) having amphibious ships keeps recurring here. But having phibs is not a naval matter, it is an Army matter. As long as the Canadian Army does not indicate to the Government that they wish to be able to attack from the sea and provide for the funding for its components to train and exercise that capability with sufficient frequency to remain current in it, the Navy will have no part of this capability. Hence why Chief Stoker above states - correctly if there is no demand for it from the Army - that such ships would just sit alongside, uncrewed.

When the Army wants it, then we'll get the ships. Meanwhile, don't foist the capability on the RCN.

Do they want to be able to attack from the sea? Or do they just want to get off the dock at Halifax and Esquimalt?

That is why I posted the "Ferries" and why I continue to suggest that investing in a surplus of ocean going ferries for civilian traffic makes more sense to me than building LHD/LSDs. Modular conversion kits would be a cost effective opportunity as well.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They would be sitting along side somewhere with no crew if we had a place to berth them.

At that time the time we were looking at them, the Tribals were self-divesting and the base crew of a Mistral is slightly less than a Tribal . So we would have stood up a new helicopter carrier with 1-2 Sea Kings on it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

While I agree with your statement, Cloud Cover, I cannot agree with the sentiment.

I know I am repeating myself, but the idea of the RCN (or worse the naval reserve) having amphibious ships keeps recurring here. But having phibs is not a naval matter, it is an Army matter. As long as the Canadian Army does not indicate to the Government that they wish to be able to attack from the sea and provide for the funding for its components to train and exercise that capability with sufficient frequency to remain current in it, the Navy will have no part of this capability. Hence why Chief Stoker above states - correctly if there is no demand for it from the Army - that such ships would just sit alongside, uncrewed.

When the Army wants it, then we'll get the ships. Meanwhile, don't foist the capability on the RCN.

The Van Doos did do an exercise with the French Mistrals and since we will always be an expeditionary army, it would have been time for the grown ups to say "Yea your getting this and you need to accommodate it and plan for it". I suspect the Mistrals would be the C-17's of the seas and very much in demand and helping Canada score brownie points with our partners.

 

[Stoker]

At that time the time we were looking at them, the Tribals were self-divesting and the base crew of a Mistral is slightly less than a Tribal . So we would have stood up a new helicopter carrier with 1-2 Sea Kings on it.

I've seen these Mistrals arguments for years from people pineing away on why didn't we get them and how good it would be if we did. All the 280 personnel went to crew the Kingston Class as the the crewing model changed to mostly regular force and the fleet in general so there wasn't excess people available to crew the Mistrals. The simple fact of the matter is that we didn't even have jetty space to put them, decent helos and so they would have sat alongside sucking up a shrinking maintenance budget. IF we had the personnel, facilities, aircraft and budget in better times then have at er. If anything we dodged an albatross around our necks in my opinion.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Maybe and maybe not. Personally I think it would have helped the RCN and given them new missions and also changed how the CAF works together.

 

[Navy_Pete]

At that time the time we were looking at them, the Tribals were self-divesting and the base crew of a Mistral is slightly less than a Tribal . So we would have stood up a new helicopter carrier with 1-2 Sea Kings on it.

Yes, but those crews were already destined for AOPVs (despite the mismatch of trade composition, and a lot of sailors retiring with the class). We got a bunch of new ships without creating new billets that way. Even if we are hugely undermanned, there is a massive bureaucratic process for all that.

 

[Maxman1]

The simple fact of the matter is that we didn't even have [...] decent helos

Gee, I wonder why...

 

[Baz]

decent helos…

Yet the back end of the Cyclone design was changed to put it sideways to make it easier to remove everything as a result of SCTF, which wasn’t free.

Ironically, if we had kept a few Sea Kings, strip all the avionics and put in a new cockpit, they would have made on excellent HADR and literal maneuver helo. The airframes and drivetrains were in excellent shape. Think Mk-4 junglie.

I think the lost opportunity was to use them to train people. For one week every few, load em up with a bunch of trainees and tool around outside of Halifax and Victoria, with a bunch of air types getting deck qual’d and SACs getting control time (god knows they need it). Think HMS Argus on steroids while we regen, and then see what we could do next.

 

[KevinB]

While I agree with your statement, Cloud Cover, I cannot agree with the sentiment.

I know I am repeating myself, but the idea of the RCN (or worse the naval reserve) having amphibious ships keeps recurring here. But having phibs is not a naval matter, it is an Army matter. As long as the Canadian Army does not indicate to the Government that they wish to be able to attack from the sea and provide for the funding for its components to train and exercise that capability with sufficient frequency to remain current in it, the Navy will have no part of this capability. Hence why Chief Stoker above states - correctly if there is no demand for it from the Army - that such ships would just sit alongside, uncrewed.

When the Army wants it, then we'll get the ships. Meanwhile, don't foist the capability on the RCN.

Well let’s be reasonable now, the Army wants them, they suit don’t want to pay for anything…

The original Chinook divestment enters the chat…

 

[Cloud Cover]

Yet the back end of the Cyclone design was changed to put it sideways to make it easier to remove everything as a result of SCTF, which wasn’t free.

Ironically, if we had kept a few Sea Kings, strip all the avionics and put in a new cockpit, they would have made on excellent HADR and literal maneuver helo. The airframes and drivetrains were in excellent shape. Think Mk-4 junglie.

I think the lost opportunity was to use them to train people. For one week every few, load em up with a bunch of trainees and tool around outside of Halifax and Victoria, with a bunch of air types getting deck qual’d and SACs getting control time (god knows they need it). Think HMS Argus on steroids while we regen, and then see what we could do next.

Lol!! Whatever did Rotor Maxx do with those Sea Kings and why aren’t they in Ukraine with the ex RAF ones.

 

[Stoker]

Gee, I wonder why...

I just assumed we were too cheap....