• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,079
Points
1,090
Canada hasn't been good at sub hunting since LCdr Woodburn was the XO on CHA in the 90's. No other Halifax class ship I've sailed on has had a Command Team that has paid proper attention to the time it takes to train and do ASW. Jets, missiles, high speed, go fast....that's where the excitement is, that's where they spend their time. Tail OPS at 24 knots...give it a try sometime. I've seen it in person. We spend more time launching and recovering the Array than we ever did with the tail wet and actually searching for something.

Jumping back to ammo - There's no reason we cannot use any of our ships to transport containerized munitions - from the MCDV to the AOPS to AST to the new AOR, and the coming CSC. All of them can transport sea containers. (A Halifax Class can too if you're willing to give up the flight deck...) That said - that doesn't mean it's a good idea to transport sea cans of ammo that way.

Also, there is very little about a ship's magazine spaces that make them any more safe the other compartments on ship - no extra armour for sure. That said, they do have automated sprinklers that are pretty good. A fitted firefighting system is all that really differentiates the 57mm mag from the dry provisions stores.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
20220822_113223.jpg
Harpoon Magazine. Notice the very heavy sliding blast door on top. Harpoon fuel is exceedingly toxic, so keep all the fumes inside in case of damage to them.
20220822_113212.jpg
One of the other missile magazines. Notice there isn't a very heavy door on top. Because we want the missiles to vent upwards if they start burning. That opening goes to the missile handling deck and then to the outside.
I had one of the other magazines as an image but it seems to be corrupted. Basically, it looks like these without the foundations. It has rails instead where the ammo will be stored using cages. Open deckhead as well.



20220822_114431.jpg
20220822_114436.jpg
Wardroom servery and wardroom. Both are very large.
20220822_114454.jpg
MS and Below Mess. As you can see from the various bits of equipment it is massive. The galley is opposite the JR's and is also very large.

That's pretty much all the photos that I took that are really of interest. I wasn't allowed in engineering spaces that day because there was quite a bit of work going on and we would have gotten in the way. Overall the ship's scale is just huge. Very impressive.

@NavyShooter - With the Cyclone ASW is making a comeback right now, in my last deployment we did ASW exercises constantly. Those Kilo's out of Syria are causing some concern...

Also, the JSS has space reserved for small arms armour in the main magazines on the German designed magazines and the Canadian designed magazines have been designed with steel plating equivalent to the protected 50 cal positions (ie: stop small arms). But certainly not old school WW2 type armour against naval guns and such.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
686
Points
910
Anti-submarine warfare takes patience and practice. I can't recall who it was but someone in hese forums once dubbed ASW as being Amazingly Slow Warfare. And it is true.

In my days, I think FRASER held the record, for a prosecution of a RN O-boat that lasted 39 hours during one of the Ocean Safari convoy Ex. The O-boat gave up and surfaced, having pretty well run out of breathable air and battery power.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
346
Points
880
To be honest I was happy that we finally had an AOR and was giving Davie credit for getting her done. I had never heard of this wilful sabotage before and quite pissed. Really they should make it so the yard pays a hefty penalty and they lose contracts, unless the person(s) are identified and charges are laid. Maybe if their union brother realises these idiots are costing them their livelihood, then they pipe up. I should not have had to learn about this well after the fact, from a non-official source. It should have been broadcast far and wide and rewards offered for information immediately upon discovery. Hiding it just contributes to the issues.
What I see from the workers at VDC, is they know that the quality of their work is what keeps the yard full and them making an excellent wage. Yes they grumble and bitch about the company from time to time, but not out of the ordinary and most of it is about stuff they see preventing them from doing their work better.
Never said it was sabotage, Federal Fleet owns her and is responsible for her upkeep and repair which is done by Davie. It was certainly sloppy work conducted at the time when the yard has labour issues. Hell the upper decks weren't even painted when she was rushed to Halifax. Sloppy work and defects intentionally caused are not isolated to one yard.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,694
Points
1,160
Underway, Seaspan has two other buildings a couple of km to the East where they built the Fast Cats, they use one for module construction and the other for receiving and sorting of fittings and piping for the ships. Very neat to walk through and see the massive amount of sub contracted parts that goes into these ships.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
Yes it will. Smoke and Flare Mag, Hangar Torpedo Mag, Torpedo Magazine, Magazines 1 (ESSM), 2 (SM2), 3 (Harpoons), 4 and 5 (CIWS, 57mm, 127mm, small arms and other things that have proper compatibility).

Its expected that Torpedo and missile loading will be done by the ship alongside or at anchor in a very low seastate as the ships main crane is not rated to be swinging around crazily while underway. Not to mention the challenge of operating the ammunition elevators for the missiles in that sea state.

The only concern is if JSS can carry a full fuel load, stores load, two helos and full ammo load. It might be too much weight so some tradeoffs will likely depend on the mission.

Underway, I am glad you brought up the Falklands war.

Everybody remembers how that war, at sea, was an air war. But the Argentinians also had three (yes, just three - at least until one was destroyed in St-Georges Island) O-boats. There never was a shortage of AA missiles, or of shells for the guns - but the RN very nearly ran out of anti-submarine ammunition. As you indicated, anything remotely looking like a POSSUB got a torp/depth charge thrown at it. In those days, we called the tactic "classification by detonation".

So yes, carrying and transfering Mk 34/54 is an extremely important capability, even in a small war involving submarines. And MTS, you can transfer torpedoes at sea simply by sending your own frigate helicopter to the JSS, where they can load them on the helo, then return to the frigate, have them unloaded and put back in stores. It's slower than a transfer in harbour but if you need them, then you don't care that it's longer and more complicated.

P.S.: I don't recall anyone suggesting loading the larger missiles in the Asterix.

Like i said, I’m skeptical of a helicopter being able to drop torpedoes onto to a very moving target safely no matter where the helicopter came from. The frigate would have to leave the area. And unlike lopsided like the first gulf war where you ca leave the battle area for a while and come back in a while RAS’d. The enemy would have a say in the matter.

In a full-scale war in the Pacific we would lillely be ramming subs if we were to run out of torpedoes. You take your cobbled together/composite battle group and you fight with what you have and that is that. Like a war with the Soviet Union in the Cold War No leaving the area to get more Ammunition. The ammunition dumps would be gone anyway.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
Please forgive if some words i have chosen. They’re the best i could come up with on short notice.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
686
Points
910
Perhaps I am the one who is not clear.

MTS, our frigates (and AOR[old] and JSS) carry anti submarine helicopters. These helicopters hunt and sink submarines using topredoes (either Mk 46 or Mk 54 - my apologies for the number typo in my post yesterday calling the former a Mk 34). The helicopters have hard points to hang those torpedoes from. When the torpedoes are expended, the helicopter can come back to the frigate to re-load: the frigate carries special handling equipement to take the torpedoes from the torpedo magazine and safely bring them to the helicopter and hang them to the hard points. The reverse operation can be done to store the unused torpedoes back in the magazine. The JSS/Old AOR are similarily equiped to handle torpedoes from the magazine to the helicopter hard points and back. Using that process to tranfer torpedoes at sea from the JSS to the frigates is what I was describing. I never suggested "dropping" torpedoes on deck.

And BTW, flying helicopters on and off a frigate while hunting a submarine is part and parcel of how we hunt them, so there are no combat limitations on using the helicopter deck during ASW ops.

Serious question here, and not meant to disrespect in anyway, but just for my understanding of the level of details needed when I try to make a point: Have you ever served onboard a Canadian warship?
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,079
Points
1,090
I'm a former SONAR Tech, and a former Magazine Custodian. I signed for a full complement of MK46 torps on a Halifax Class ship...I kind of understand how ASW OPS run and OGBD has a pretty good grasp of things.

The ship has various sensors that can find subs - both Active and Passive SONAR. The helo can fly out and both detect subs using it's onboard sensors (Sonobouys, Dipping SONAR, MAD sensor) to localize, track, and drop a torp on a bearing that will intersect with the sub's track.

Having multiple ships with passive sensors means you can triangulate on a bearing, and place the helo on top of the sub to drop right on top with no warning.

Using the helo to conduct inter-ship transfers of torps is do-able as well. And it wouldn't need to be just using the hard-points with the new helos. They have a cargo ramp. You could probably fit at least 2 torps in their transport coffins onboard, plus 2 more on the hard-points, so you could probably transfer 4 at a time that way.

Jumping back to the AORs - very interesting to see that there is a dedicated storage space for the Harpoons - that is not something you can transfer at sea, but, if you were alongside there's no reason that you couldn't replace expended launch tubes in port if you have a suitable crane and the angle bracket for installation/removal.

Thought - I know back in the 'old days' we used to send the Tankers down to Roosie Roads and other spots near the end of FY to top up with cheaper fuel that we'd bring home and use to gas up the fleet for a couple of months. I'm wondering if there's a move afoot to use the AORs to transfer ammunition from Depot to Depot?

By that I mean taking them off trains or trucks for long distance transport to CFAD Bedford and sending the AOR to Norfolk to pick them up...and then having the AOR drop them at our ammo depot ourselves...saving rail shipment problems and cross-border transport issues (not to mention perhaps 'easier' Dangerous Goods transport regulations?)

A concept - would the new AOR's become a form of cargo ship for the Navy, not just a supply ship providing a ship's tactical needs in theater?
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,516
Points
1,260
Like i said, I’m skeptical of a helicopter being able to drop torpedoes onto to a very moving target safely no matter where the helicopter came from. The frigate would have to leave the area. And unlike lopsided like the first gulf war where you ca leave the battle area for a while and come back in a while RAS’d. The enemy would have a say in the matter.

In a full-scale war in the Pacific we would lillely be ramming subs if we were to run out of torpedoes. You take your cobbled together/composite battle group and you fight with what you have and that is that. Like a war with the Soviet Union in the Cold War No leaving the area to get more Ammunition. The ammunition dumps would be gone anyway.

We load torpedoes on helos at sea and we can unload them at sea. They land, we wheel them out, bim, bam, boom they are mounted to hard points the zoomies can go play again. Its just reverse order; helo lands boom, bam, bim to unload. :cool:

AORs and the sundry of support and logistics vessels will be prime targets in a Naval war, they massively extend range and war fighting. It will be the crazy country who sends them out well un protected. Navies are one big Logistics FP organization.

The bigger question we need to ask, is what are our plans when the CPFs loose their compliment of missiles and so have our allies ? We dont have a whole thousands ready for use. And if we are busy so are our allies who may be hesitant to give up their own dwindling stock.

May I propose reintroducing:

world war i ocean GIF by US National Archives



Naval Battle Navy GIF by World of Warships
 

Grimey

Member
Reaction score
115
Points
530
The older ships also had a totally different philosophy for the DWPs; we used to to 'baseline' refits, where we would just systematically replace portions of the systems each refit. ie we would do the front third, middle, then back third over 3 refits (starting at I think the 10 or 15 year point. So at 25 or 30 years old piping for the major systems would be be replaced at least once.

That changed around mid 90s for the 280s when we did the TRUMP program to condition based (basically check things and replace as necessary), but basically meant that the firemain (for example) was basically from the 90s, so when we retired them the oldest parts were about 25-30 years old. Still means you do some repairs but overall in decent shape.

A lot of the minor piping and domestic systems were still original, but generally the major bits were in decent shape for a 40 odd year old ship, so it was more on the old generators and engines that were way obsolete, plus the controls and wiring that was an issue.

The CPFs have always been condition based, and a lot of that has never been fully poked at, so we fix things as they break, and survey what we can for repair planning. Impossible to get a lot of it though, so basically there is a huge mechanical repair deficit, and why the DWPs are two years long. Add to that not enough people/time for maintenance, and a high ops tempo that is doing the rental beating/put away wet, and the ships are in bad shape.

Sure, new combat gear, but it's a bit like the kid with a old car, that was fundamentally well built but needs repaired, driving around with bondo/hope, but fitted with rims, ground effects and a big stereo.

The older ships also had a totally different philosophy for the DWPs; we used to to 'baseline' refits, where we would just systematically replace portions of the systems each refit. ie we would do the front third, middle, then back third over 3 refits (starting at I think the 10 or 15 year point. So at 25 or 30 years old piping for the major systems would be be replaced at least once.

That changed around mid 90s for the 280s when we did the TRUMP program to condition based (basically check things and replace as necessary), but basically meant that the firemain (for example) was basically from the 90s, so when we retired them the oldest parts were about 25-30 years old. Still means you do some repairs but overall in decent shape.

A lot of the minor piping and domestic systems were still original, but generally the major bits were in decent shape for a 40 odd year old ship, so it was more on the old generators and engines that were way obsolete, plus the controls and wiring that was an issue.

The CPFs have always been condition based, and a lot of that has never been fully poked at, so we fix things as they break, and survey what we can for repair planning. Impossible to get a lot of it though, so basically there is a huge mechanical repair deficit, and why the DWPs are two years long. Add to that not enough people/time for maintenance, and a high ops tempo that is doing the rental beating/put away wet, and the ships are in bad shape.

Sure, new combat gear, but it's a bit like the kid with a old car, that was fundamentally well built but needs repaired, driving around with bondo/hope, but fitted with rims, ground effects and a big stereo.
Controls and wiring wasn't helped by partial float tests either. Don't carry out an inclining experiment with the tank covers off.
 

Attachments

  • Inclining Experiment.jpeg
    Inclining Experiment.jpeg
    546.4 KB · Views: 12

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
Perhaps I am the one who is not clear.

MTS, our frigates (and AOR[old] and JSS) carry anti submarine helicopters. These helicopters hunt and sink submarines using topredoes (either Mk 46 or Mk 54 - my apologies for the number typo in my post yesterday calling the former a Mk 34). The helicopters have hard points to hang those torpedoes from. When the torpedoes are expended, the helicopter can come back to the frigate to re-load: the frigate carries special handling equipement to take the torpedoes from the torpedo magazine and safely bring them to the helicopter and hang them to the hard points. The reverse operation can be done to store the unused torpedoes back in the magazine. The JSS/Old AOR are similarily equiped to handle torpedoes from the magazine to the helicopter hard points and back. Using that process to tranfer torpedoes at sea from the JSS to the frigates is what I was describing. I never suggested "dropping" torpedoes on deck.

And BTW, flying helicopters on and off a frigate while hunting a submarine is part and parcel of how we hunt them, so there are no combat limitations on using the helicopter deck during ASW ops.

Serious question here, and not meant to disrespect in anyway, but just for my understanding of the level of details needed when I try to make a point: Have you ever served onboard a Canadian warship?
I’ll grant that I know little about specific tactics for Cyclones.

We’re dancing around that there is somewhere to go RAS. If i were the enemy I’d kill the logistics very soon in any true war. Especially beause we’d want to fight over there not over here.

I’d hope that wed keep our as full of fuel and munitions at all times.

Nope. Very much retired Civilian marine engineer. And serious hobbyist. I’m read and i guess i write a lot. Too. HIstorian and Gear Head.

I’m not sure how I got into this specific back and forth about specific tactics

What i was trying to impress that i know very little except basic tactics from the Cold War that are still likely true today.

In the very beginning, people would come in and try to say that Aterix is equally or better than JSS. in meaningful way. I’d try to impress people that Asterix was not suitable for Canadian use long term. It had signifcant technical problems But people kept coming back with new ways to make it seem equivalent.

In one of your previous posts you said nobody said anything about placing larger missiles.

I showed the one what said that and i will contend that AOR is going to be early targets. And every ship that carries large munitions ought to have them in a magazine.

That’s it.

~~~~~

I apologize for speculating without knowledge about tactics

Facts Matter
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
686
Points
910
Thanks for coming clean MTS. It helps keep the converation going by avoiding skipping over what we take, here, to be common ground. We some time forget it isn't common for everyone.

Now there is no denying that in an all out war, the ennemy wouldn't mind taking out your supplies if they can. But it is not necessarily going to be the first or even primary target. For instance, during the cold war ( I was there - my war), we expected that the Soviet's first two targets would be the Carrier groups and the Reforger convoys. But we also knew that the whole ocean was the theatre - thus no safe rear area - and that we still needed fuel, ammo and food while at sea.

In Canada, it meant we elected to have the AORs tag along. On the East coast, one ot the PROTECTEUR class sailed with CANDESRON ONE, and the other one with CANDESRON FIVE. On the West coast, PROVIDER sailed with CANDESRON TWO. Training squadron was left to fend for itself. If we were doing escort work, the AOR could sail with the convoy and we would take turn to RAS within the convoy. If we sailed independantly, then the AOR was the protected high value unit in the centre and the destroyers basically provided escort around her to our destination.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
Thanks for coming clean MTS. It helps keep the converation going by avoiding skipping over what we take, here, to be common ground. We some time forget it isn't common for everyone.

Now there is no denying that in an all out war, the ennemy wouldn't mind taking out your supplies if they can. But it is not necessarily going to be the first or even primary target. For instance, during the cold war ( I was there - my war), we expected that the Soviet's first two targets would be the Carrier groups and the Reforger convoys. But we also knew that the whole ocean was the theatre - thus no safe rear area - and that we still needed fuel, ammo and food while at sea.

In Canada, it meant we elected to have the AORs tag along. On the East coast, one ot the PROTECTEUR class sailed with CANDESRON ONE, and the other one with CANDESRON FIVE. On the West coast, PROVIDER sailed with CANDESRON TWO. Training squadron was left to fend for itself. If we were doing escort work, the AOR could sail with the convoy and we would take turn to RAS within the convoy. If we sailed independantly, then the AOR was the protected high value unit in the centre and the destroyers basically provided escort around her to our destination.
That’s great information. I shall run with it. I knew about reformer the the purpose of a naval interceptor, and of course reforger, but i didn’t know about the Canadian STraatgey and tactics. Because canada doesn’t talk about our role in the Cold War, the only stuff easily available is Canada’s land and air contributions.

Book?
 
Last edited:
Top