AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[aesop081]

There real point of this is that something is going to have to be cut from the JSS requirements. 

Exactly. What you did in that post was not to cut from JSS but to add a bunch of shit to it.

Your comment about the RAS risk is something I was worried about----perhaps move the gear for or aft as needed.

Better starting thinking of where your flight deck is going to go......all that RAS stuff getting in the way. Then theres your elevators.......

I agree with you about the HQ function----since it was in the JSS requirements it may well need to be included to have the political will to proceed with such an idea----in fact I would be hesitant about having the ammunition on a tanker as well!

What you were proposing has fuel, ammuniton, your C3 assests, your aviation assets and your medical facilities on the same ship.......

I would hate to see the next class of new ships to be "ice-breaking kayaks armed with a C6".

And i would hate to see operations come to a grinding halt because everything we had was on it....literaly.

Go read up on the Falklands in 1982. I will give you the key words "Atlantic Conveyor".

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If you have better choices of air defence systems then fire away.

Sure I do..how about something in use by the rest of the Navy....unless you are going to place Goalkeepers and RAMs on the rest of the fleet as well...

I agree with you about the HQ function----since it was in the JSS requirements it may well need to be included to have the political will to proceed with such an idea----in fact I would be hesitant about having the ammunition on a tanker as well!

You completely missed my point....an AOR is what we called an HVU (High Valued Unit) to put a command capability on it like the JSS proposed is just making it a higher priority target for the bad guys. What do you think carries our ammuntion right now? Thats right the AORs...

There real point of this is that something is going to have to be cut from the JSS requirements.  In my opinion, the JSS is really a conglomeration of 3 ship-types.  Just calling for AOR will probably not cut it with the bureaucrats---so what do YOU cut and still make the concept appealing to the bureacrats??
A single purpose ship will likely be still-born.

Sure it is...as an AOR you are busy as it is...if your the command ship of a TG and there is a crises....you might not be able to leave the area and who will refuel your consorts then...you are certainly not going to do it within harms way....

 

[aesop081]

no catapult, arresting gear.

Bear trap, tie down, room to refuel the helos, move them around since you have many of them.......

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

not to mention torpedo handling facilities

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Do you have a model built from LEGOs so I can get a better picture of the thing?

I really like that one  ;D

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ummm we can get back on track right now...


Milnet.Ca Staff

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Slightly off topic but does anyone know why only one ship HMCS PROVIDER was ever built out of the Provider class?

 

[GAP]

Slightly off topic but does anyone know why only one ship HMCS PROVIDER was ever built out of the Provider class?

I thought there was 2 supply ships....

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I can only find reference to one every being built, but the PROTECTEUR Class has 2, PROTECTEUR and PRESERVER

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

There are Provider was a seperate class and was taken out of service...Preserver and Protecteur are the two in service now

 

[armyvern]

Slightly off topic but does anyone know why only one ship HMCS PROVIDER was ever built out of the Provider class?

On speaking of the HMCS Proctecteur and the HMCS Preserver (Protecteur Class) ...

Built in the late 1960s, these ships (Vern's insert: the two above) benefitted from the lessons learned from Canada's first postwar replenishment vessel, HMCS PROVIDER. Once the new ships were available, PROVIDER was sent to the West Coast where she would stay until the late 1990s. PROVIDER's open "jungle" deck made her unsuited to the North Atlantic, and the new ships therefore had enclosed "jungle" decks. They were originally fitted with a 'bowchaser' twin gun mount, but these were removed due to the maintenance involved with a gun in such an exposed position on the foc's'le. During the 1990/1991 Gulf War (or Persian Excursian as it is known in CAF circles), this mount was replaced on PROTECTEUR, and removed again once she returned. Both ships have ice-strengthened hulls. They are the largest ships ever built for the Canadian Navy.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Provider was an orphan but in the navy you will find quite a few ships like that.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Hmm... couldn't they have retrofitted her by covering in the "jungle" deck instead of building a new class of AOR's?

 

[armyvern]

Hmm... couldn't they have retrofitted her by covering in the "jungle" deck instead of building a new class of AOR's?

I'm wagering that good ol' KC Irving had way too much pull way back then for a mere "retrofit" to have sufficed.  >

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Provider would be approaching 50 years old had we have kept her

 

[Neill McKay]

Hmm... couldn't they have retrofitted her by covering in the "jungle" deck instead of building a new class of AOR's?

The other two ships were required anyway.  All three served together for years.

 

[FSTO]

I was talking with my boss today about JSS. He has a close friend in the project office and when my boss tried to get some info on what was going to happen next, the friend wouldn't tell him a thing. Seems that CMS staff is being very tight lipped on what is happening next. So for the next foreseeable future whatever you see in the press is nothing but speculation.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Maybe they are waiting to see what ideas we come up with here.

 

[HalfmyLife]

Maybe they are waiting to see what ideas we come up with here.

sure they do. but maybe I'm a pessimist

 

[gvg]

MacKay: Ottawa to restart process to replace navy ships

By Jennifer Macmillan, THE CANADIAN PRESS

DARTMOUTH, N.S. - Defence Minister Peter MacKay is promising a Canadian-made solution to replace two aging navy supply ships after Ottawa sunk a $2.9 billion replacement program last week.

The program was put on hold after bids to build the new vessels came in over budget.

"Unfortunately the Canadian companies were not able to meet that bid process," MacKay said at an event on Friday.

"Now we hope we'll be able to restart that process and get that ship building underway very quickly."

MacKay says the federal government intends to sit down with Canadian industry groups to find a way to replace HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver.

He added that Ottawa is still seeking to buy 12 new mid-shore patrol boats for the Canadian Coast Guard.

In a written statement released late last Friday, the Conservative government announced a tender call for the new coast guard vessels had also been cancelled. Ottawa had expected to spend $340 million on the patrol boats.

The move to scuttle the supply ship replacements came as a blow to a navy that is already struggling to keep its existing 1960s-era ships in the water.

Undated briefing notes leaked to The Canadian Press last weekend say the ships are obsolete, out of spare parts and may not meet today's environmental standards.

The document also sheds light on concerns about whether the two current ships are safe enough to continue at sea, concluding the navy will have to "manage the risk" and take stock on how to keep the vessels in service.

The supply ships are vital to keeping warships supplied with fuel, ammunition, spare parts and supplies during long overseas operations.

The cancellation was criticized by the opposition parties, with NDP fisheries critic Peter Stoffer calling it a broken promise.

He said scuttling the program flies in the face of the Conservative government's pledge to strengthen the Canadian Forces.

The program to acquire new multi-role ships was announced in Halifax in June 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor.

The announcement was heralded at the time as the beginning of a new era for the navy.

Stoffer said the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn't living up to its commitments to the military.

"It is easy for the Harper Conservatives to say that they support the troops," Stoffer said in a news release on Friday.

"But at the end of the day, they just don't deliver."

Source