AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Edward Campbell]

From my perspective we need to work on the basics of sea power before we can get the cool toys the big boys play with. While it would be nice to have an LPD in the fleet, exploring the concept IMO has taken resources away from the replacement and refit of all of our ships.
1) Get the AORs
2) Refit the CPFs
3) Replace the 280s annd eventually the Halifax class with a common hull with common systems
4) Get the Victorias back in the water and look for a replacement sooner rather then later.
5) maintain some sort of cadre minewarfare capability
6) develop an Arctic patrol and support capability.
then and only then should we look at an LPD.

Personally before an LPD, I would rather see in the fleet, ships like diving support tenders, salvage and repair ships and even a hospital ship.

Thanks again, for this and the personnel numbers. I understand your list, here, and makes good sense to me.

Re: the highlighted bit - are the MCDVs part of the minewarfare capability? Or do we need a carbon fibre hull, etc?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

While we have some ability in mine warfare I don't think we have a capbility to the degree of navies such as Belgium or Germany. Maybe one of our friendly neighbourhood NavRes can clarify this more. In particular E.R.'s carbon fibre hull question?

 

[Blackadder1916]

Yes, I suppose that would be popular. Are there enough doctors and nurses in the CF to crew it?

It's been a couple of decades since I first visited the Comfort (or was it Mercy?, anyway, whichever was homeported in Baltimore, visited the one in Oakland later)), so some of my information may be out of date.  But back then, I was there to make a preliminary study of the requirements if in case we got serious about doing something similar.  Having something of like size and dedicated solely to a medical (or humanitarian) mission didn't make sense from the Canadian perspective.  It probably still doesn't considering the size of the CF and what would be expected (not to mention politically acceptable) casualty rates.  There would be a similar over-capacity in a vessel dedicated to a humanitarian mission.  The Comfort, back then, had an inpatient bed capacity that exceeded the total number of active hospital beds in all CF hospitals.  Of course, there was a significant difference between the inpatient care that could be provided afloat and that available in a static tertiary hospital.  But I was somewhat awed (back then) that the Comfort had recently been outfitted with two (2) CT Scanners when  NDMC was nowhere close to having a CT of its own (other than a capital project that was still just a proposal and nowhere close to funding).  The conclusion back then (and it probably still holds true) is that an enhanced medical facility with a surgical capability on a mutli-use vessel (be that an AOR, LPD or something else) would be the best approach.  It was even taken into consideration in the planning of the CCG's Polar 8 icebreaker.

Back then the Comfort and Mercy did not get out much.  That started to change with Desert Storm but I don't think the manning of the ships has changed much.  They are not "USS" ships; they are "USNS", the "ships crew" were civilians; the "medical crew" were military and other than a very small caretaker group were only with the ships when deployed.

 

[Sailorwest]

While we have some ability in mine warfare I don't think we have a capbility to the degree of navies such as Belgium or Germany. Maybe one of our friendly neighbourhood NavRes can clarify this more. In particular E.R.'s carbon fibre hull question?

The advantage of carbon fibre hulls for minesweeping is clear and those countries that are concerned about sea mines have developed that capability to deal with it. The adults in Canada's Navy are to a great degree fixated on blue water operations jointly with US and other NATO partners and have little to no interest in brown water. There is lots of talk of litoral warfare and how to deal with it but the actions by the higherups are clear; continue with ASW frigates and area air defence destroyers, submarines and new fleet supply/JSS to participate in the big game in far away places.
The KIN class have done the decidedly unsexy job of route survey, and are capable of doing ROV inspections of things found. Is that enough minewarfare capability? At the end of the day, we still have clearance divers don't we? The question is, if the KIN are phased out with the arrival of the AOPS, is that capability (arguably minimal) going to be lost?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Do I understand this correctly?

1. The (six?) AOPVs (which will be larger than the MCDVs?) will have mixed Reg/Res crews;

2. The people have to come from somewhere so at least some of the MCDVs have to be decommissioned to provide 250 or so trained NAVRES people for full time service;

3. We will still want (or will we need?) to be able to conduct mine warfare operations on both coasts so we will need some (new?) (purpose built?) MCMVs.

How many MCMVs will we need to have a credible mine warfare capability? How many sailors? Can they have mixed (Reg/Res) crews, too?


Edit: I apologize for highjacking this thread but one question seems to lead to another and I'm trying to get my simple, old soldier's head around the Navy's requirements.

 

[Sailorwest]

1. The (six?) AOPVs (which will be larger than the MCDVs?) will have mixed Reg/Res crews;
The initial discussion that I've seen would be just that. Probably a crew size of 60 to 80 pers.

2. The people have to come from somewhere so at least some of the MCDVs have to be decommissioned to provide 250 or so trained NAVRES people for full time service;
Fair enough. Although 250 is pretty healthy portion of current MCDV manning list for both coasts (80 - 90%). Of course, you could decommission one 280 and have the same effect. 

3. We will still want (or will we need?) to be able to conduct mine warfare operations on both coasts so we will need some (new?) (purpose built?) MCMVs.
Does anyone (I mean in a position to make a decision) agree that we want or need any MCM capability? It doesn't seem to be on the menu anywhere.

How many MCMVs will we need to have a credible mine warfare capability? How many sailors? Can they have mixed (Reg/Res) crews, too?
We have 10 platforms for MCM currently. Of course there are much fewer packages that could be used at any one time. I suppose you could limit the number of ships to the number of route survey/ROV packages we currently have. But that would be if you were to have these ships as purpose driven, with no other role. A crew size of no more than 30 would make sense as does a mixed crew. Of course you open the debate as to whether the reservists on the KIN class currently are actually reservists or really in the reg force.

 

[navy Dave]

Since the present AOR's are old, I think that something needs to be done quickly to replace them. The navy should have kept HMCS Provider for parts until the new Oil Replenishment vessels are ready.

 

[geo]

preaching to the choir my friend.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You do know that HMCS Provider was a different class of AOR all together don't you?

 

[geo]

Different ship from the same era though... most of the mechanicals that make the ship go shoulda been compatible - I woulda thought.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

And has anything been stated that they did not gut the Provider with what they could use for the Protecteur class? The Navy has always been big on recycling equipment that can be reused. The ships are 40 years old, no matter what parts you have on hand, its going to be hard to keep them going....

 

[NavyShooter]

She was well and truly cleared out before she left.

The problem is getting new ones is not a short process, and re-starting part-way through means more lost time that the current platforms do not have. 


NS

 

[ironduke57]

End of last year our parliament approved the money for an third Berlin class ship for our Navy.
(~330Mil Euro. The first two cost only ~120Mil each. :brickwall
Actuall delivery should commence in 2012. (But as I know our politicians they are let it build as slow as possible to pay the money in a looong time frame.) Maybe you could cut a deal with our Navy for it. As we already have two we are not in such dire need as you are.

Regards,
ironduke57
(P.S.: If parts are hard to read for you I am sorry. It is a "bit" late here.)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

NavyShooter: That's what I thought too.

Ironduke57: From what I have seen of the Berlin class I think our Navy would be getting a really good asset should we ever chose to buy it.

 

[geo]

A1411 Berlin... Pretty ship... capabilities list is impressive - we could do a lot worse than buying into that design.

 

[whitehorse]

Re; MCDV and MCM:

You are both right. The MCDVs were never intended to be 'full time' MCM platforms but were an amalgamation of several roles including sovereignty patrols, some limited MCM capability and of course training junior officers. As a result there are not ideally suited for any of the above (and yes perhaps there is a lesson here for JSS). Accordingly when they are  retired we will be loosing some of our limited MCM capability.

In addition to you various comments about divers etc that we also have the remotely operated mine detection system (using side scan sonar in a remote semi-autonomous body)  which can be operated from frigates, destroyers and AORs (with the right crane). This system (whose name escapes me) can do many of the same jobs as the route survey payload on the MCDVs but obviously can't do the BOIV role.

I guess what I am saying is that with the end of the MCDVs in 10 years or so that we will loose some of this but a small mixed fleet often has to make trade-offs in capability. My guess is the adults either have weighed the options or are weighing them and have decided that is worth it.

Could an AOPV do MCM? A little I guess and at least as well as an MCDV could with the right payloads and crew training.

Finally Sailor West is right about the crew mix.  It will be a mix of regular force and 'reserve'. However let me point out some other facts that will be happening about the same time.

First the total crew requirements for the AOPV will be more or less the same as the total crews of the MCDVs, about 300 - 400. (Which by the way the Naval Reserve can't meet now, much less 10 years from now).

Second, by that time (2019) the 280s will be long gone and there is not signed contract to replace them. It takes our navy working with our politicians about 10 years betwen signing a contract to having a hull in the water. The FFH contract was signed in 1983, the 1st (HALIFAX) was delivered in 1991 with VACOUVER in 1993. The point here is that there will be a gap where significant numbers of regular sailors will be available.

Third, at the same time some of the FFHs will be still going through the FELEX program, again more sailors available.

Fourth, even if a AOR/JSS contract were signed today (presuming they are locally built) it will take 10 years to build them and they will probably have smaller crews. More sailors available.

Fifth, the SSKs will probably reach the end of their useful life about this time and any government other than this one will be loathe to replace them. More sailors.

In summary I do not think manning the AOPVs or the JSS will be a problem in 2019 -2020. Too many other classes will either be gone without replacement or going through refit, or hopefully under construction. So assuming we have about the same numbers of sailors in that time as we have now we will have plenty of regular sailors at least initially.

What does this mean? Well if I were a 'permashad' in my 20s or thirties I would give serious thought about staying on 'full-time'. About the same time that you expect to have a 'career' the "raison d'etre" of the reserves will be gone and there will be plenty of regular sailors to fill any bunks required.

Additionally, while the crews are 'mixed' (although I agree with Sailor West here in that  personally see no difference between a permashad and a regular sailor, they certainly aren't 'reserves' by any stretch of the imagination) the manning will proably not be a reserve responsibility. Accordingly training, qualifications and appointments will be controlled by CMS staff and not NAVRESHQ. As such all those nice juicy shore jobs currently held by so called 'reservists' (most of whom have long since given up their day jobs, if they ever had one) will probably also not be required. If a bosn requires the same skills as for a FFH as for an AOPV why have a separate training system?

 

[Navy_Blue]

I  had the opportunity to have a few Holstein and to much Jägermeister on the Frankfurt am Main.  It was a very nice ship inside and out.  Compared to anything we sail on it was a cruise ship. 

As far as the SSK's its been said before in many other threads if you don't have Subs you don't have a navy.  We might as well pack up and turn our funding over to the Coast Guard if we ever loose our Sub capability. 

As far as manning them.  If magicly we fixed all four and tried to put to sea tomorow we would have maybe one and a half crews after a lot of people slapped in retirement notices.  Not releases.  Your not quiting if you have given the CF your 20 or even completed a contract.  Your manning issues will not be solved by loosing platforms or having them in refit.

 

[cobbler]

Could an AOPV do MCM? A little I guess and at least as well as an MCDV could with the right payloads and crew training.

I wouldn't think so.

An ice capable ship is not really going to fair well amongst mines, due to having large magnetic & acoustic signitures etc that would set off influenced mines.

Also the hull materials and design between icebreakers and first world MCMs are pretty much polar opposites of each other.

IMHO Mine Warfare should never be something tacked on to a ship as an afterthought, there are too many considerations to be made. As such dedicated MW ships should be sought.

 

[whitehorse]

Cobbler:

You're right and you're wrong. An AOPV will not be an ideal MCM in fact it may in a crunch prove to be useless at the task but it would probably do as well as an MCDV would be given that all of the limitations you mentioned apply just as much to MCDVs as they would to a hypothetical AOPV (remember no contract has been signed yet). In fact given that their proposed displacement will be twice that of an MCDV they are that much more likely to survive an underwater detonation.

In a crunch however you party with what you've got not what you wanted to have. No Government regardless of political stripe is going to spend $1B+ on a small group of GRP hulled dedicated  MCMs. Not in an economic depression. They would be instantly labelled as expensive, cold war 'toys' and about 3 million special interest groups would demand the funding be moved to their budgets.

The Canadian Navy will be getting out of the mainstream MCM business and fact given the fact that the Minesweeping gear for the MCDVs has long since been mothballed and that we are developing an 'any hull' capability with the 'Dorado' (that's the name) we have already begun the process. All other MCDV 'capabilities' in this area are probably doable with the AOPVs.

This really is no different than what the liberal governments of the 70s did with naval aviation. Make it too expensive, denounce it as politically unacceptable and then replace the capability with something less capable (in that case helicopter carrying destroyers). The pattern is there and has been going on for a very long time.

As far as submarines go the writing is on the wall. Yes we will operate them for their lifespans but no one seriously expects them to be replaced. You can tell me that no submarines = no navy, or that ton for ton they are the most effective platforms or whine on about elites etc but they are done. Any political party in power or aspiring to be in power knows this, opinion polls have been consistent on this for years. Get over it and enjoy what you've got while you've got it.

I would also remind you that we were a navy before we had submarines just like we were a navy before we had carriers and a fleet air arm. We have somehow survived the loss of one and will survive the loss of the other when it happens. In any event I haven't seen any submarines intercepting pirates off the Somali cost or doing vessel searches in the Red Sea. Until and unless they are seen as value for money by the Canadian public their future and replacements are limited.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

With all do respect whitehorse, I know you are a LCDR and all but I don't think anyone of us can predict the future and what the Navy will or will not have.

Guaranteed if a terrorist boat dropped a mine over the side of his cabin cruiser and an ocean liner struck it with a heavy loss of life including Canadians. The Canadian public would be screaming for mine warfare vessels.

WRT your comment on submarines hunting pirates. Have you ever considered the fact they might be there gathering intelligence?

Last point helicopter carrying frigates and destroyers are not a bad thing. Its a valuable asset to have and nothing to be scorned at as you did in your post.