[Jabberwalker]

Something that could also be flown off of those ships are drones, which are probably the future of Naval aviation for a lot of missions that are done from bigger carriers with manned aircraft.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It may be better for the Army (where Hillier came from), but it's of no help to the navy, which is why were are talking about AORs, not LPDs, LHDs or anything like it.

Hillier may have been popular with the Army, but that popularity wasn't nearly as high with the other services because he played favourites. He wanted stuff to support the army and really didn't seem to care too much about the other services.

And realistically, given the threats to Canada and its air and sea borders, the Army should be #3 in terms of priorities, with the Air Force and Navy coming in at 1A and 1B (or vice versa) if you ask me.

And strategic airlift is of more use to the Army than the Air Force, but the Air Force still does it don't they?

Sure they do, I'm sure they glad to get anything dring th Hillier years. But I bet they would have prefered F-35s to C-17s.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Out of the three ships you mentioned, the Dutch ship is closest (hence why I similar, not the same)in capability to the JSS. The others aren't even close.

The Dutch ship is essentially an LPD with AOR capability. The Berlin class oilers are 100% replenishment ships with no sealift capability other than some deck space for seacans. That's it.

We are not getting "Joint Support Ships", we are getting AOR's. Unless they plan to do some radical redesign work.

That's fine by me - the navy needs AORs, sealift was just a bonus. If that is the price to keep this capability, then so be it. The positive is that if the Conservatives stay in office for another term, the navy just might get an LPD as well.

[Nuggie77]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

You do know that AOR's are what keep ship's deployed for extended periods right?
Canada has no need for amphibious assault ships, just like it has no need for aircraft carriers.

Of course I know that, but apparently my point flew over your head at 80,000 feet.

AOR's allow our vessels to be deployed globally. We don't require them either if all we want to look after is our "15 million kilometers of dirt air and sea". If our concern ends at the EEZ limit why the hell do we need half the shit the military has?

Hint: The CF operates globally.

Really?? Thanks tips.
Because the navy operates globally and locally, they need the support of tankers wherever they go, even in local waters within the EEZ, unless they want to head into port to refuel every 5-6 days or so. And by the way, one of the reasons the navy opted for tankers versus Amphibious capable ships was because the army bailed out and wouldn't provided funding from their budget. It all comes down to wants versus needs.

[Jabberwalker]

The Halifax Class frigates are brilliant in that they can travel really large distances without replenishment due to those cruising diesels and their relatively small crews. It doesn't seem all that likely that the RCN is going to roam the globe with their own stand-alone fleet, anyway. We will almost always be parts of our allies forces. The days of Canadian task forces were scrapped with the Bonny.

These new ships would give the forces all sorts of flexibility, though and the army could certainly operate off of those Dutch ships, I would imagine.

... the beginnings of a Canadian Marine Corps ... about the size of JTF2?

[saturn_656]

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

You do know that AOR's are what keep ship's deployed for extended periods right?
Canada has no need for amphibious assault ships, just like it has no need for aircraft carriers.

Of course I know that, but apparently my point flew over your head at 80,000 feet.

AOR's allow our vessels to be deployed globally. We don't require them either if all we want to look after is our "15 million kilometers of dirt air and sea". If our concern ends at the EEZ limit why the hell do we need half the shit the military has?

Hint: The CF operates globally.

Really?? Thanks tips.
Because the navy operates globally and locally, they need the support of tankers wherever they go, even in local waters within the EEZ, unless they want to head into port to refuel every 5-6 days or so. And by the way, one of the reasons the navy opted for tankers versus Amphibious capable ships was because the army bailed out and wouldn't provided funding from their budget. It all comes down to wants versus needs.

The cruise range of the Halifax is 13,000 kilometers. Iroquois aren't quite as good, 8,000 kilometers or so.

Both can cruise for well over six days.

[Jabberwalker]

The cruise range of the Halifax is 13,000 kilometers. Iroquois aren't quite as good, 8,000 kilometers or so.

Both can cruise for well over six days.[/quote]


The Frigates can transit oceans without an oiler, now. The gas turbine-only 280s are far less efficient than the mixed diesel/gas turbine Frigates, They really are well designed ships. Canada designs great ships when we get the chance to.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It may be better for the Army (where Hillier came from), but it's of no help to the navy, which is why were are talking about AORs, not LPDs, LHDs or anything like it.

Hillier may have been popular with the Army, but that popularity wasn't nearly as high with the other services because he played favourites. He wanted stuff to support the army and really didn't seem to care too much about the other services.

And realistically, given the threats to Canada and its air and sea borders, the Army should be #3 in terms of priorities, with the Air Force and Navy coming in at 1A and 1B (or vice versa) if you ask me.

And strategic airlift is of more use to the Army than the Air Force, but the Air Force still does it don't they?

Sure they do, I'm sure they glad to get anything dring th Hillier years. But I bet they would have prefered F-35s to C-17s.

Who says they aren't getting F-35's?

They can have their dog and pony show... crap... I mean "competitive bidding process", but in the end I think it will still be the F-35.

[Canadian_Mind]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

These new ships would give the forces all sorts of flexibility, though and the army could certainly operate off of those Dutch ships, I would imagine.

... the beginnings of a Canadian Marine Corps ... about the size of JTF2?

The dutch ship can transport and support around 150 troops, which is less than half the size of a battalion. that said, if those troops were of the caliber to acquire and hold an area where another cargo ship or two transporting a battle group (think a ferry) it could prove useful in that regard.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The cruise range of the Halifax is 13,000 kilometers. Iroquois aren't quite as good, 8,000 kilometers or so.

Both can cruise for well over six days.

Those numbers are impressive, but still not enough for sustained ops. Basically means the Iroquois could sail on one tank of gas from Victoria to Halifax through our arctic without stopping or diverting course for any reason. Halifax could probably do a sortie with no issues.



Now, despite me saying I don't think we need amphib or JSS capabilities, I do think we should get the Karl Doormann. Not because of the JSS like capabilities, but because purchasing it next year would take pressure off our current AORs, and allow the shipyard to prioritize the icebreaker. The fact it has JSS-like capabilities is extra gravy on the pudding. Reality is it won't be the best oiler on the oceans.

[Jabberwalker]

We have fewer ships at sea now than when the Preserver/Protecteur were commissioned. There was at the time, of course a third AOR ... Provider on the West Coast. All of those DDEs and DDHs really sucked up the bunker fuel and they needed to sail with an oiler of some sort ... be it an AOR or, back in the days, a carrier. The modern ships don't need to follow a milch cow, can sail independently and there are fewer of them so we don't necessarily need a full time oiler. Also, the AORs needed to carry bunker (now, just to fuel themselves), turbine and diesel. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the diesels can burn the same fuel as the turbines and helicopters, so the ship itself doesn't need the same large tanker capacity.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

And strategic airlift is of more use to the Army than the Air Force, but the Air Force still does it don't they?

Sure they do, I'm sure they glad to get anything dring th Hillier years. But I bet they would have prefered F-35s to C-17s.

Who says they aren't getting F-35's?

They can have their dog and pony show... crap... I mean "competitive bidding process", but in the end I think it will still be the F-35.

Yeah they might, but my point was that had the RCAF been given a choice, they almost certainly would have picked something other than C-17s. However, the CDS pushed for C-17s to support the army, not fighters.

That's largely why Hillier talked about the BHS (Big Honking Ship), NOT the JSS. He din't care as much about the Navy's needs as he did about the Army's.

[saturn_656]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

We have fewer ships at sea now than when the Preserver/Protecteur were commissioned. There was at the time, of course a third AOR ... Provider on the West Coast. All of those DDEs and DDHs really sucked up the bunker fuel and they needed to sail with an oiler of some sort ... be it an AOR or, back in the days, a carrier. The modern ships don't need to follow a milch cow, can sail independently and there are fewer of them so we don't necessarily need a full time oiler. Also, the AORs needed to carry bunker (now, just to fuel themselves), turbine and diesel. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the diesels can burn the same fuel as the turbines and helicopters, so the ship itself doesn't need the same large tanker capacity.

I believe all the ships (save the old oilers) burn diesel fuel, for both cruise diesels and gas turbines.

Helicopters run on an aviation fuel of some sort, not sure which. JP-5 or JP-8 seems likely.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yeah they might, but my point was that had the RCAF been given a choice, they almost certainly would have picked something other than C-17s. However, the CDS pushed for C-17s to support the army, not fighters.

That's largely why Hillier talked about the BHS (Big Honking Ship), NOT the JSS. He din't care as much about the Navy's needs as he did about the Army's.

The RCAF (RCN as well) shouldn't be given a choice on whether they want to provide mobility for the Army. The expectation should be (is) that the various branches of the Canadian Armed Forces support each other in their missions where necessary.

I suppose we could carve the RCAF up, give the bulk of the C-17's, Hercules, Chinooks, Griffins to the Army and give responsibility for ASW helos back to the Navy.

Closer to how it used to be prior to "unification".

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

Helicopters run on an aviation fuel of some sort, not sure which. JP-5 or JP-8 seems likely.

(JP5)

The gas turbines that are used for ship propulsion are basically aviation jets that are set up as "stationary" engines. I'm a bit surprised that the whole mess can't be tuned to burn one fuel. Diesels will burn any old stuff.

Anyway, they won't have to haul around great, big tanks of Bunker C, anymore.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

The RCAF (RCN as well) shouldn't be given a choice on whether they want to provide mobility for the Army. The expectation should be (is) that the various branches of the Canadian Armed Forces support each other in their missions where necessary.

It has to be that way, especially for a small power with limited resources.