- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Ok this is being unlocked after consultation with Michael O'Leary. Lets stick with the topic at hand and try not to stray.
Electronics for 280 replacement
- Thread starter Navalsnpr
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
I am really amazed at the amount of discussion that this topic has brought forward 
. Obviously we all know that the 280's require replacement and coupled with the vast number of military contractors, there are multiple options that could be thrown on the table for a replacement
I believe that "ships that can do more with fewer personnel" is a concept that has been thrown around in the past and this obviously is something to consider. Mind you this ship must be able to handle a limited number of training billets, staff billets and maintain the ability and numbers to still be able to perform boardings. So I think that it should be able to steam with 125-150 personnel, but be able to handle up to 275-300 personnel with staff and two complete boarding teams embarked.
Although it would be nice to have a dual-hanger configuration, only one helicopter would be required. With the JSS coming on line, 2nd line maintenance could be performed on that class of ship rather than this ship. Besides, dual hanger creates a top heavy ship... which we currently have and call a 280!
With all the above being mentioned, we also have to maintain focus that Canada
are strong leaders in the ASW world as well as being able to hold their own in the other areas of nautical warfare. Obviously this ship should be able to accomplish those tasks as well.
With the newer technologies being made available, it seems to be easier to do more with less personnel... although training for these personnel becomes very long. This is just sign of the times.
Looking at the issue of a "Greener Military" where you have the Combat Arms occupying positions on the ground and then all other parts of the military are there to support those forces, I think that NGS should be an option to look at as well.
Like Ex-Dragoon said, lets stick with the main discussion as I think this one has brought about many good ideas...
. Obviously we all know that the 280's require replacement and coupled with the vast number of military contractors, there are multiple options that could be thrown on the table for a replacementI believe that "ships that can do more with fewer personnel" is a concept that has been thrown around in the past and this obviously is something to consider. Mind you this ship must be able to handle a limited number of training billets, staff billets and maintain the ability and numbers to still be able to perform boardings. So I think that it should be able to steam with 125-150 personnel, but be able to handle up to 275-300 personnel with staff and two complete boarding teams embarked.
Although it would be nice to have a dual-hanger configuration, only one helicopter would be required. With the JSS coming on line, 2nd line maintenance could be performed on that class of ship rather than this ship. Besides, dual hanger creates a top heavy ship... which we currently have and call a 280!
With all the above being mentioned, we also have to maintain focus that Canada
are strong leaders in the ASW world as well as being able to hold their own in the other areas of nautical warfare. Obviously this ship should be able to accomplish those tasks as well.With the newer technologies being made available, it seems to be easier to do more with less personnel... although training for these personnel becomes very long. This is just sign of the times.
Looking at the issue of a "Greener Military" where you have the Combat Arms occupying positions on the ground and then all other parts of the military are there to support those forces, I think that NGS should be an option to look at as well.
Like Ex-Dragoon said, lets stick with the main discussion as I think this one has brought about many good ideas...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Navalsnipr said:
I'm not particular either way, one or two hangars, makes no difference to me as an operator.
I just want to clarify something though, I don't think you understand what 2nd line maintenance is. 2nd Line maintenance must be able to be done on the mother warship. I'm no maintenance type, but my understanding is that 1st line maintenance is the daily stuff like pre and post flight inspections, fueling, torpedo loading, etc. 2nd Line maintenance would be things like engine changes, scheduled inspections, etc. This is stuff that can be done on FFH/DDH's, if you can't then your helo becomes useless to you until you hit port and are able to crane it off and onto the tanker for maintenance.
My understanding of the tanker's maintenance organization is that they carry more spares and an AERE, otherwise in my experience, everything that could be done on a ship at sea, we've done with the 11 embarked technicians. When something pops up like gear or ASE snags, we disembark at the earliest convenience in order to perform the maintenance ashore where the deck doesn't pitch and roll.
- Reaction score
- 13,226
- Points
- 1,010
The Tanker maint org is also capable of doing CAMPs (Continigency Air Maintenance Programs) which can replace every second Periodic (done every 600-650 flying hours on a Sea King). The tanker also has shops that allow for some limited third line test bench and maintenance work on engines and electronics. That all said, my understanding of the Cyclone is that there will not be a "periodic" maintenance session every so many flying hours, as many items which are currently "lifed" in flying hours will become "on-condition" items (ie, it does not get replaced until it begins to show signs of wear). This will naturally change how we will do maintenance at sea, but don't ask me how. I just expended my knowledge of aircraft maintenance... 
I like Navalsniper's thoughts on crew size. I think he is going in a sensible direction. The mistake, IMHO, we have made in the past is to build our ships with exactly the number of bunks for the crew size at design stage. Inevitably, the ship is launched and we find out that we forgot all about carrying trainees, extra medical people, PAFFOs, lawyers, whatever. I like the idea of having a bunch of "extra" mess decks that can be closed off for normal "peacetime" sailing or opened when needed to carry an extra boarding party, a platoon of infantry soldiers, JTF-2, NCDts on phase IV MARS, etc.
I'm not sure the problem with the top-heaviness of the 280s has much to do with the dual hanger. It is, after all, mostly empty space. The real problem, I think (I'm not MSE), is how the hull is designed and the machinery organized. As for 1 vs 2 helos on the Future Surface Combattant- I could care less as well. The Cyclone should (in theory) be much more reliable than a Sea King and the incredible sensors available should mean that we will require fewer of them at sea with a TG to get the same (or better) job done.
I like Navalsniper's thoughts on crew size. I think he is going in a sensible direction. The mistake, IMHO, we have made in the past is to build our ships with exactly the number of bunks for the crew size at design stage. Inevitably, the ship is launched and we find out that we forgot all about carrying trainees, extra medical people, PAFFOs, lawyers, whatever. I like the idea of having a bunch of "extra" mess decks that can be closed off for normal "peacetime" sailing or opened when needed to carry an extra boarding party, a platoon of infantry soldiers, JTF-2, NCDts on phase IV MARS, etc.
I'm not sure the problem with the top-heaviness of the 280s has much to do with the dual hanger. It is, after all, mostly empty space. The real problem, I think (I'm not MSE), is how the hull is designed and the machinery organized. As for 1 vs 2 helos on the Future Surface Combattant- I could care less as well. The Cyclone should (in theory) be much more reliable than a Sea King and the incredible sensors available should mean that we will require fewer of them at sea with a TG to get the same (or better) job done.
Similar threads
