AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[Underway]

Actually, everyone in NATO who thought they could get away with small crews are now rethinking that position.

Apparently, in wars, you need lots of folks to do stuff.

Yep. I'm sure at least you and I have talked about this but for everyone else:

French CNO has flat out stated in the press that they (France) bet on smaller crews and they bet wrong. This was based on their experience in the Red Sea recently, where the crews were exhausted after multiple days on station in 24/7 operations.

This is common for Euro navies with smaller crews. They don't do anything at night more complicated than task group manouver training (which only really needs the watch on deck). The Five Eyes navies don't play like that. Day or night same capabilities are awake, on shift or on call.

 

[GR66]

Yep. I'm sure at least you and I have talked about this but for everyone else:

French CNO has flat out stated in the press that they (France) bet on smaller crews and they bet wrong. This was based on their experience in the Red Sea recently, where the crews were exhausted after multiple days on station in 24/7 operations.

This is common for Euro navies with smaller crews. They don't do anything at night more complicated than task group manouver training (which only really needs the watch on deck). The Five Eyes navies don't play like that. Day or night same capabilities are awake, on shift or on call.

100% agree that minimal manning for a warship is the wrong way to go. However, I think that for what @Kirkhill is envisioning...an arsenal ship that has a single purpose - accompanying a task group during wartime ops to provide additional strike or AD missiles for a single engagement then returning to port to reload - then a minimally manned platforms might be a valid option.

 

[suffolkowner]

100% agree that minimal manning for a warship is the wrong way to go. However, I think that for what @Kirkhill is envisioning...an arsenal ship that has a single purpose - accompanying a task group during wartime ops to provide additional strike or AD missiles for a single engagement then returning to port to reload - then a minimally manned platforms might be a valid option.

sounds like something someone else should iron the bugs out of first

 

[Stoker]

We'll name the 3rd JSS HMCS Provider.

 

[Swampbuggy]

We'll name the 3rd JSS HMCS Provider.
View attachment 89787

And the 4th one HMCS PRESENCE…

 

[GR66]

sounds like something someone else should iron the bugs out of first

Not really sure what the bugs are you're talking about. Military ships with large crews are the tiny minority of vessels on the seas. The technology to run a large ship with a small crew is in widespread everyday use. Instead of hauling containers full of iPhones, toys and running shoes you instead load it with containers full of missiles. The missiles are directed from the warships that the arsenal ship is accompanying.

The "bugs" to be worked out are the concept of operations not the technology.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

HMCS PERSISTENCE perhaps: The best thing, it works in both official languages (as does PRESENCE, actually) and is more representative of helping the fleet stay at sea longer.

 

[suffolkowner]

Not really sure what the bugs are you're talking about. Military ships with large crews are the tiny minority of vessels on the seas. The technology to run a large ship with a small crew is in widespread everyday use. Instead of hauling containers full of iPhones, toys and running shoes you instead load it with containers full of missiles. The missiles are directed from the warships that the arsenal ship is accompanying.

The "bugs" to be worked out are the concept of operations not the technology.

yes exactly concept of operation and i think staffing levels still too. What kind of escort does this/these arsenal ships require? How big or small an arsenal ship and how many? What part of the task group?

 

[Swampbuggy]

I didn’t check my autocorrect…I meant for it to say HMCS PERPETUATE

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually, everyone in NATO who thought they could get away with small crews are now rethinking that position.

Apparently, in wars, you need lots of folks to do stuff.

If that is true then a lot of stuff won't get done.

cf the Russian and Ukrainian experience with pressing people into service.

 

[Rainbow1910]

We'll name the 3rd JSS HMCS Provider.
View attachment 89787

If we do get a third JSS, I don't think it was ever in doubt she would be named Provider.

 

[JLB50]

HMCS Procrastinator

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/dttl-er-challengeindustry-08072013.pdf

"Most vessels require a crew of 20-25 personnel"
"Officers typically represent about 35-40% of the crew"

North American Fleet Officers

35% Philippinos
16% Indians
3% Other Asians

13% Europeans
10% Russians
6% Balkans
3% Eastern Europeans
1% Ukrainians

1% North Americans

12% Others

North American Fleet Ratings

83% Philippinos
8% Indians
2% Indonesians

3% Russians

4% Others.

Globally the Phillipines and India provide 45% of the Officers and 90% of the Ratings

....

Challenges to recruiting

separation from friends and family
desire of Generation Y to be socially networked at all times
the perception that a career in shipping involves a life at sea
negative focus on environmental issues and piracy
women are severely underrepresented

Ancient perq of seeing the world undermined by short calls in port (24-36 hours in port if in port at all and if allowed shore leave).

....

There is no pool of sailors from which to recruit.

Even the British fleets historically depended on Lascars - Indian sailors.

....

Crew size

VLCC 24-26
Suezmax 22-24
Aframax 21-24
Panamax Bulker 20-24
Handy bulker/reefer 20-22
LNG/LPG 15-24
Product Tanker Automated 20-24

....

You can keep asking for more shipmates but asking isn't getting.

....

And, I point out, that no matter how big a ship you build it is still a 30 knot target in a Mach 5 world that is becoming ever more transparent.

 

[Kirkhill]

According to UNCTAD STAT 2022, there are 102,899 ships:

• Oil tankers - 11,565
• Bulk carriers - 12,714
• General cargo - 20,112
• Container ships - 5,589
• Other types of ships - 52,919

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I didn’t check my autocorrect…I meant for it to say HMCS PERPETUATE

Say that 3 times on the radio

 

[dapaterson]

HMCS Queenston.

 

[lenaitch]

Not really sure what the bugs are you're talking about. Military ships with large crews are the tiny minority of vessels on the seas. The technology to run a large ship with a small crew is in widespread everyday use. Instead of hauling containers full of iPhones, toys and running shoes you instead load it with containers full of missiles. The missiles are directed from the warships that the arsenal ship is accompanying.

The "bugs" to be worked out are the concept of operations not the technology.

I don't think container crews are trying to maintain the contents of the containers in a state of readiness, or intend that the iPhones get powered up mid voyage. I'm only guessing that missiles, launch systems, etc. aren't load-and-forget.

Nobody is trying to sink them.

How much shore-ship/ship-ship communications does it take to operate a container ship? Does any of need to be encypted/hardened?

Assuming you want them built to better-than-container-ship standards; i.e. more than one engine, more 'stuff' needs more maintenance. As we saw in Baltimore, minimal equipment or back-up and crew to deal with it can mean things going pear shaped really quickly. Losing one might not endanger a lot of people on board, but it might be a hull and a lot of unused missiles or whatever on the bottom.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't think container crews are trying to maintain the contents of the containers in a state of readiness, or intend that the iPhones get powered up mid voyage. I'm only guessing that missiles, launch systems, etc. aren't load-and-forget.

Nobody is trying to sink them.

How much shore-ship/ship-ship communications does it take to operate a container ship? Does any of need to be encypted/hardened?

Assuming you want them built to better-than-container-ship standards; i.e. more than one engine, more 'stuff' needs more maintenance. As we saw in Baltimore, minimal equipment or back-up and crew to deal with it can mean things going pear shaped really quickly. Losing one might not endanger a lot of people on board, but it might be a hull and a lot of unused missiles or whatever on the bottom.

Are you sure that nobody is trying to sink merchantmen?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There is no pool of sailors from which to recruit.

Which is why national navies recruit off the street and train their sailors from scratch.

Ancient perq of seeing the world undermined by short calls in port (24-36 hours in port if in port at all and if allowed shore leave).

That perq still exists and is available to sailors of the King's Navy, thank you very much. In fact, some people complain that they are seeing too much of the rest of the world.

Are you sure that nobody is trying to sink merchantmen?

Pretty sure. Hijacking them to ransom the crew and cargo, now that's another issue.

 

[Kirkhill]

@Oldgateboatdriver

I think Lloyd's has a different perspective on the hits and misses.

Map and List of Attacks

www.lloydslist.com