Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR

[Privateer]

From CBC:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-navy-looks-to-fill-fleet-gap-with-purchase-from-u-s-1.2775533

The Royal Canadian Navy may purchase a soon-to-be retired ship from the U.S. to replace its two supply vessels forced into retirement since a government ship-building program has been delayed by several years, CBC News has learned.

...

Canadian navy officers have turned to the U.S. navy to fill the gap, sources told CBC News.

The U.S. navy has two supply ships heading toward early retirement: the USNS Bridge and the USNS Rainier. The U.S. navy is retiring these two ships, built in the 1990s, to cut costs, it announced this summer.

Leasing the Rainier or Bridge would be a good idea, naval expert Ken Hansen said, because it would provide more capability at a lesser cost.

In addition to purchasing or leasing one of these two ships from the U.S., the Canadian navy may also buy or lease foreign-built civilian ships and convert them to meet its needs.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Sounds like a armed boarding party is in order, cutting out a frigate is part of the tradition! Of course it will have to be cleansed of Lutefisk afterwards!

Off topic, but seeing as they are going willy nilly on the historical side, that would be the perfect opportunity to get my letter of marque and a cape!  Also, a pretty funny charge sheet.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The Wikipedia entries for the USNS Bridge and the USNS Rainier.

I note that the ships were originally fitted with the following weapon systems, which were removed when they were de-commissioned.

- NATO Sea Sparrow Missile Launching System
- Close-In-Weapons-System (CIWS)
- 25mm guns (x2)
- .50 Caliber Machine Guns (x4)
- Countermeasures Set - AN/SLQ-32(V)3
- Decoy Launchers (x4)
- Torpedo Countermeasures Transmitting Set (NIXIE).

So, the question is, IF Canada buys them, would it it be feasible/practical to re-fit them with these weapons systems or something similiar??

 

[GR66]

The Wikipedia entries for the USNS Bridge and the USNS Rainier.

I note that the ships were originally fitted with the following weapon systems, which were removed when they were de-commissioned.

- NATO Sea Sparrow Missile Launching System
- Close-In-Weapons-System (CIWS)
- 25mm guns (x2)
- .50 Caliber Machine Guns (x4)
- Countermeasures Set - AN/SLQ-32(V)3
- Decoy Launchers (x4)
- Torpedo Countermeasures Transmitting Set (NIXIE).

So, the question is, IF Canada buys them, would it it be feasible/practical to re-fit them with these weapons systems or something similiar??

Would it be worthwhile to fit them with weapons?  Do we normally deploy our AORs where they are in harms way without other support? 

 

[dapaterson]

So, the question is, IF Canada buys them, would it it be feasible/practical to re-fit them with these weapons systems or something similiar??

Depends on how we try to acquire the systems.  The US has many, many, many rules on the use of weapons systems it has developed; purchase through a foreign military sales agreement could take a long time.

 

[MilEME09]

Depends on how we try to acquire the systems.  The US has many, many, many rules on the use of weapons systems it has developed; purchase through a foreign military sales agreement could take a long time.

That said though, with a drop for 3 to 2 AOR's given current budget projections for our replacement project, purchasing these two ships would not only be a stop gap, but increase the fleet to four ships total once the new ones hit the water (that is if we keep them in the long run, I mean they are only 20 some odd years old, our average life span is 50, they got another 30 years on em!) and be a politcally acceptable way for the public to accept getting more ships for less money.

 

[suffolkowner]

Thanks MikeKiloPapa for your responses

The acquisition of the 2 fast supply ships might allow the Polar Icebreaker to jump ahead of the AOR's and help fill another void

 

[FSTO]

I don't think we can afford the pers bill for one these ships let alone two.
From Wikipedia

40 Officers, 36 Chief Petty Officer's and 591 Rates.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

USN and USCCG seems to over staff their vessels and quarters are generally tighter.

 

[FSTO]

USN and USCCG seems to over staff their vessels and quarters are generally tighter.

I wondered about that. It would likely come down to the stoker and bosn requirements.  Also we could reduce the number stations (fueling and heavy line transfers) being manned at one time.

 

[suffolkowner]

When I looked up the staffing numbers I have between 206-235 after they were disarmed(?) prior to that over 700. Obviously something that would be looked into

 

[Stoker]

Usually the US navy have many pers doing a lot of small tasks, whereas Canada has a few trades doing much more.  If we do get these ships I would imagine the crewing similar to the Preserver. The ships are gas turbines as well and will be fairly expensive to operate, tanker personnel would have to be trained in from steam to gas turbines and are the same type we have. I also noticed they carry much more JP5 than F76, I would imagine that is because they supply Carriers, shouldn't be a problem to reduce the amout of JP5 they carry and increase F76. They also operate the Sea Knight so should be able to handle the Sea King or replacement nicely.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Speaking from experience with RASing with USN and American built platforms such as OHP's etc, another reason they need more manpower is that they would need bodies to haul in ropes etc as they didn't have the winches that we had for span wires etc.  Speaking for my trade, HT, as I understand there are at least 5 USN trades that cover what we do.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Overstaffing with hyper specialized personnel is also my experience with the Americans. I once day-sailed on one of their minesweeper where they had 23 engineers of four different trade designations at a time when we operated the equivalent PB's with 11 of two designations.

I don't think manning these two ships would require more than our current AOR crew. After they were transferred from the USN to the USNS (civilians), their manning went down to about 210-235 (depending on the size of the USN contingent carried). I suspect this means that they did install (if not already there) the various winches and other handling systems designed to reduce manpower requirements. We would not need more manpower just because we would transfer the PRO class current  defensive armament to these two ships after "acquisition". Such transfer of armament we already own after acquisition would also remove any impediment based on US regulations of trade in armament.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I thought the leasing option was going to be 'with crew' with some RCN staff for support/cross training.  Also, I thought in this particular case, they are retiring them as part of the budget cuts, so we should get a deal on them as they want an excuse to keep them going.  Anyone know any different?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect it would be a small core of key people, mostly on the Engineering side and scattering of deck officers and Cargo specialists supervisors. The ship could come to us hot, with say a 1/2 crew running our guys through a month of alongside training, followed by some light resupply practices close to home, followed by a slightly longer mission to do full resupply at sea with just the small core of US sailors onboard to assist and advise as required. Each ship has it quirks and allowing the crews to work together for a bit reduces the learning time to get a handle on the quirks. Knowing things like "At 12.5kts you always get a bit a vibration in the stern and it's been that way since she was launched" saves a shitload of money investigating a supposed issue that has never hampered the ship beforehand. Not to mention they might have sent oodles of money trying to fix already. 

 

[Rifleman62]

The USN sailors might also enjoy a drink after work while at sea.

 

[Journeyman]

The USN sailors might also enjoy a dink after work while at sea.

Interesting typo...... 

 

[PMedMoe]

Interesting typo...... 

:rofl:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Your only gay if on the bottom and USN..... 8)