- Reaction score
- 26,676
- Points
- 1,090
We've already divested CF-18 pilot humility, so...Hmmm…maybe we could divest CF-18 ejection seats?
We've already divested CF-18 pilot humility, so...Hmmm…maybe we could divest CF-18 ejection seats?
That's pretty English compared to some of the other things I've heard.Do you Navy people speak English? Joking
That's why we have boat transfers.....Yeah. Good plan. Because helicopters are always serviceable…
I guess that's the issue they didn't need to talk to you and I expect they asked both coasts how much it was actually used and a decision made based on that. Using it three times your last deployment is cool but do you use it all the time, I'm willing to bet you don't. Regardless the decision is made.They clearly didn't talk to us when they made this decision.
Used the Kingpost 3 times on my recent deployment. Did two point RAS every time, with both USNS Wally Schirra and with USNS Carl Brashear.
Once was just to test it to confirm it worked and the other two were because we actually needed supplies, namely quality fresh vegetables and other food.
It is a fairly dangerous evolution and one of our dump workers was almost taken out by a pallet a couple of times.
I don't see why we would get rid of it, it's not complex piece of equipment and the US Navy is quite good at it? COVID laid bare our requirement to be able to supply ourselves on operations. The Navy ATT relies exclusively on contracted support in foreign ports and we had trouble getting a lot of things because of this.
Any Ships we deploy to the MENA should have access to our own tanker support. Given our desire to PROJECT ships across the World continuously, I personally think we should keep a Tanker permanently stationed in the Asia-Pacific Theatre. Base it out of Guam and have it rove between there and the Gulf of Aden to supply our ships as required. It could also be used to supply our Allies, a WIN WIN for everyone. If we had four tankers, you could rotate them annually. Year long deployment for those involved and it would be a good go that I would volunteer for.
We were starved for gas halfway across the World, meanwhile the CAF was posting photos on social media of the ASTERIX doing RAS with the Harry DeWolf. Why would we deploy our tanker with our expeditionary units? Nah lets use it to fill up an AOPV that is a 100 miles from shore .
That's why we have boat transfers.....
I guess that's the issue they didn't need to talk to you and I expect they asked both coasts how much it was actually used and a decision made based on that. Using it three times your last deployment is cool but do you use it all the time, I'm willing to bet you don't. Regardless the decision is made.
If you have that much of an issue get hold of the LCMM and state your case. You are right as mentioned before by someone else the skill fade is significant in this capability. I don't know if you noticed but to keep these ships at sea for the next 20 years in some form or another is going to take a shit ton of resources, this is saving money for something we simply don't use that much and is very expensive to certify and maintain.Do we use Harpoons, ESSM or Torpedoes all time? No, but they are capabilities we need IOT to maintain our capability to fight wars. This is the same logic that lead the Army down the path of divesting critical Combat Support Capabilities.
"We don't need Anti-Armour because we have Tanks, we don't need Kingpost because we have a Helicopter."
Likewise, being able to replenish yourself at sea with more than just fuel is a vital capability for any Military that professes to be Expeditionary in mindset.
My cynical mind tells me the RCN is getting rid of the capability because A. We lack the capability to maintain them now B. We lack the skills with respect to Seamanship to be able to maintain the capability.
Any of the Bosns that are intimately familiar with the Heavy Jackstay/use of the Kingpost are all Chiefs and Senior POs now with time on the old Tankers. That knowledge base is being eroded.
As for using helicopters for all our pallet needs, the US does this but usually only for their Carriers and Amphibious Assault Ships because they have the deck space to do it and they have Helos that can lend a hand. I witnessed a Konga Line of Helos resupply USS America while sitting in a screen, kind of neat to watch.
Wow.That's why we have boat transfers.....
I guess that's the issue they didn't need to talk to you and I expect they asked both coasts how much it was actually used and a decision made based on that. Using it three times your last deployment is cool but do you use it all the time, I'm willing to bet you don't. Regardless the decision is made.
No, this was approved by the RCN with input from both coasts. It was cut this or lose another capability. These things have high 3rd line costs and if you've seen it used IRL you are a unicorn. Shit is busted and we're out of money.Wow.
Any organization that fails to get feedback from those that directly conduct operations seems to be setting itself up for constraining such operations in the future.
I guess that’s how things are these days in the senior service.
It’s strange, from an outsider’s point of view…this ‘cease and desist’ almost has an Avro Arrow quality to it.
They did get feedback that's the point, unfortunately no town halls were held on this issue...do you really think the RCN didn't get feedback from the stakeholders.Wow.
Any organization that fails to get feedback from those that directly conduct operations seems to be setting itself up for constraining such operations in the future.
I guess that’s how things are these days in the senior service.
It’s strange, from an outsider’s point of view…this ‘cease and desist’ almost has an Avro Arrow quality to it.
It would appear so.They did get feedback that's the point, unfortunately no town halls were held on this issue...do you really think the RCN didn't get feedback from the stakeholders.
They clearly didn't talk to us when they made this decision.
Used the Kingpost 3 times on my recent deployment. Did two point RAS every time, with both USNS Wally Schirra and with USNS Carl Brashear.
Once was just to test it to confirm it worked and the other two were because we actually needed supplies, namely quality fresh vegetables and other food.
It is a fairly dangerous evolution and one of our dump workers was almost taken out by a pallet a couple of times.
I don't see why we would get rid of it, it's not complex piece of equipment and the US Navy is quite good at it? COVID laid bare our requirement to be able to supply ourselves on operations. The Navy ATT relies exclusively on contracted support in foreign ports and we had trouble getting a lot of things because of this.
Any Ships we deploy to the MENA should have access to our own tanker support. Given our desire to PROJECT ships across the World continuously, I personally think we should keep a Tanker permanently stationed in the Asia-Pacific Theatre. Base it out of Guam and have it rove between there and the Gulf of Aden to supply our ships as required. It could also be used to supply our Allies, a WIN WIN for everyone. If we had four tankers, you could rotate them annually. Year long deployment for those involved and it would be a good go that I would volunteer for.
We were starved for gas halfway across the World, meanwhile the CAF was posting photos on social media of the ASTERIX doing RAS with the Harry DeWolf. Why would we deploy our tanker with our expeditionary units? Nah lets use it to fill up an AOPV that is a 100 miles from shore .
If you have that much of an issue get hold of the LCMM and state your case. You are right as mentioned before by someone else the skill fade is significant in this capability. I don't know if you noticed but to keep these ships at sea for the next 20 years in some form or another is going to take a shit ton of resources, this is saving money for something we simply don't use that much and is very expensive to certify and maintain.
None. FRE's was and is broken.It would appear so.
Forensically (it would seem necessary, now), I’d be interested to see what the engagement with CAL and FRE was.
Again, my memory is getting poor but I did not think it was possible do both fuel and stores into the same dump station at the same time. Thanks for confirming.None. FRE's was and is broken.
There is a good reason to have this b 2-point RAS. If a you ever found yourself in an actual combat area, being tied to a tanker would be an uncomfortable and unsound position to be in. You want to get in and get out as quickly a spossible. Being able to replenish both fuel and provisions at the same time is critical, otherwise you have to do them sequentially and end up tied up alongside the tnaker for much much longer.