Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)

[Oldgateboatdriver]

ST: Getting the Navy to work on this would be much simpler than getting access to aircraft. The problem with aircraft, if I may say so, is that the ones you jump out from are multipurpose - they are used for transport of materiel, troops, etc. so there is a priority list unfortunately. The ships required for amphibious ops are dedicated ships -  if we had them and the army has no need for them, they stay in harbour, but if you want us to sail them 300 days a year, we would be glad to. I can't make any promises about the air force but again, I suspect that at least the Griffons and Chinooks are army dedicated assets and they would go where the army wants them.

 

[aesop081]

Here are a few recent example: Haiti, Op Nanook,  Op Lama in NFLD

We had to force our way in to these ?

:

OP LAMA ? You mean to tell me that you think that the CF currently had no single capability to get troops and equipment into Newfoundland without having amphib assests of its own ?

OP HESTIA ? Us sending supplies by ship does not make it an amphib operation. The fact that we airlifted supplies and troops into the country shows to me that , even without landing crafts, we had the capability to intervene already.

OP NANOOK ? You know thats a fancy name for an exercise right ?

 

[Kirkhill]

OGBD, at the risk of sounding facetious, again, wouldn't the degree of enthusiasm depend on who is buying the gas?

It always seems to come down to an issue of core missions.  These "bridging" capabilities that jump gaps between elements always seem to be among the first casualties when budgets get cut.

From here it looks like the amphibious force should own their own transport, if you are going to have a dedicated amphibious capability, just like heliborne troops should own their own helicopters and airborne troops should own their own aircraft.  The alternatives, air forces owning the fallschirmjaeger and navies owning marines seem to breed a constant tension between core missions of the sponsoring service and the "joint" capability.

Given that Canada (nor Britain, the US, Russia and even China) can't afford to do everything with Specialists perhaps we should focus on expanding the capabilities of our Generalists.

If we marry up all our Light Troops in a single brigade and put their helos under the command and control of the Brigade Commander then could they not be employed both from ships as well as from land?  If you supply ships with big enough landing pads for Chinooks and space for a reinforced company of passengers in spartan accomodations wouldn't that meet a much larger envelope of needs than we can currently fill without having to build a completed amphibious fleet?  As you note yourself vertical envelopment is the key driver in changing the assault paradigm from "hey diddle diddle right up the middle" in Higgins boats to a more nuanced approach of deciding not to land in front of that machine gun position over there.

Additionally, if the Bosns were given a better assortment of ships boats that were designed for something other than towing liferafts and tying up to mooring buoys, then the perhaps we could expand the envelope a little farther without having to spend mega bucks.

Having said all of that, once we get those AORs bought, I really would like to see at least one floating warehouse with a flat deck on which you could land Helos.  But, if we're not recreating Guadalcanal, and our allies are using aluminum catamarans (JHSV) to transport troops to shore and support them offshore, do we really need a billion dollar hull for that type of task?  What would be wrong with the Bay/Enforcer class type of Transport Ship in its simplest most stripped down fashion - no Joint HQ, no Hospitals or Role 3 maintenance?  Just a floating warehouse with a flat deck.

Those other capabilities could be included in the AORs (as they are) or in the SCSC programme (Joint HQ anyway) as they should be.

Beyond all of that grafting on a watercraft squadron of engineeers to the Light Brigade would seem to be a no brainer for a country with as many lakes and rivers as we have and where the navy will never operate.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Kirkhill: I'll be facetious: We run on Navy Distillate, not gas .

Seriously though, I must be expressing myself badly:  You say:

If we marry up all our Light Troops in a single brigade and put their helos under the command and control of the Brigade Commander then could they not be employed both from ships as well as from land?  If you supply ships with big enough landing pads for Chinooks and space for a reinforced company of passengers in spartan accomodations wouldn't that meet a much larger envelope of needs than we can currently fill without having to build a completed amphibious fleet? 

[...]  do we really need a billion dollar hull for that type of task?  What would be wrong with the Bay/Enforcer class type of Transport Ship in its simplest most stripped down fashion - no Joint HQ, no Hospitals or Role 3 maintenance?  Just a floating warehouse with a flat deck.

And that is exactly what I am saying also: You do not need specialized trained troops and the air force can do this with little preparation time.

I do not want a whole fleet of amphibious assault ships - but a ship with a flat top big enough for Chinooks and a reinforced company of troop - is an amphibious landing ship of some sort. They are NOT $B ships. The French Mistrals or Spanish Juan Carlos (the Australians are buying two of those - so cut the catamaran crap as support ships) are merchant ships designs. They are not that expansive to build and they have a small Navy crew.

Additionally, if the Bosns were given a better assortment of ships boats that were designed for something other than towing liferafts and tying up to mooring buoys, then the perhaps we could expand the envelope a little farther without having to spend mega bucks.

You should not comment on what you do not know (I thought that was a strong suggestion of these forums). The various types of Navy boats are NOT used to tow liferafts or to just assist the ship coming to a buoy. We have all sorts of boats and they are used in landing shore parties, carrying out boardings at sea - unopposed and opposed - search and rescue, harbour security and force protection, diving support, covert ops, humanitarian assistance, cargo delivery, etc. The various types we carry include LCVP's, carried on board the AOR's (Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel - for those not in the know). The Boatswains are trained and highly skilled in the operation of these boats for all these uses.

 

[Kirkhill]

I sit chastised across the board OGBD.

WRT the troops themselves - violent agreement seems to be the watchword on this site.  It's a wonder that humanity has lasted this long given the propensity to misunderstand each other.

WRT the Chinook and a reinforced company, and at the risk of wandering outside of lanes here, it was my understanding that 6000 tonne class vessels along the line of the Svalbard and the Type 45s could embark, although not support, heavy helicopters of the CH-47 class.  Equally a reinforced company (whatever that may be 60-200) is not beyond the lift capability of vessels of the Absalon type, or for that matter the Type 45.  I appreciate clarification if I misunderstand the situation.

WRT the Bosn's boats - I apologise for expressing myself over simplistically.


I am aware that the Navy has a wide variety of small boats on strength, including LCVPs.  My point though, referred to the boats carried aboard frigates and in particular the SCSC, and I should have made that point clear.  Rather than just supplying those vessels with RHIBs, as sea worthy as they are, could the vessel not also embark something along the lines of the LCPs (Landing Craft Personnel) operated by the Danish navy from the Absalon's and their new Arctic OPVs Knud Rasmussen as utility boats, SAR boats and landing boats.  Boats that  are similar in form and design to the Dockstarvarvet CBH-90 and used to land troops on rocky islets and skerries similar to the waters of the Gulf Islands, the West Coast gernerally, the Thousand Islands and off Newfoundland, all places that like the Swedish archipelago I have had the pleasure of visiting.


I guess, in part, this comes down to what Canada wants from the SCSC..... does it want an ASW escort or does it want a Global Corvette (both of which need dedicated AAW variants Ex-D)?


Cheers, and thanks for assisting me in clarifying my understanding OGBD.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Being in a country that operates in both the North Pacific and the North Atlantic is some of the most difficult weather conditions faced by any navy, I think the idea of having ships that cannot support organic aircraft not only puts unnecessary risk to the aircraft but to the crews of the aircraft and ships crew as well.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Kirkhill: Re: The Chinooks: They cannot be accommodated on board the type 45's (called the Daring class, BTW) and I very much doubt they could be accommodated on the Svalbard either (the helo decks are too small).

You must compare apples with apples. The Frigates and in the future the SCSC are front line warships. The similar warships of other countries are no more capable than they are of carrying troops (BTW there is no room for even an embarked command staff on board a Daring class destroyer- the Brits put their command staffs on the carriers or the Amphibs as required) and they all carry just RHIB's nowadays, even the Danish frigates.

If you incorporate their Absalon or Knud Rasmussen class, which are capable of carrying small troop contingents and land them, into the picture then you must incorporate our AOR's in our picture and our future AOPS, which will also be capable of doing so. You cannot look at SCSC and the current DDH/FFH types only.

BTW the SCSC is not an ASW escort - it is equivalent to a destroyer and will be either a general purpose or command ship/Area Air Defense type (the only two variant being considered). In either case, they will be larger than either the current FFH or DDH. There is on the other hand no such thing as a "Global corvette", but if there was it would be, by definition smaller than what we currently operate.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

OGBD...the Global Corvette was basically part of the MoD search for the RN Future Surface Combatant which has evolved into their Type 26 frigates that are on their drawing board.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ex-D and OGBD,

I take the point about the difference between landing a Chinook and landing and accomodating a Chinook safely in all seas.

I guess my confusion derives from publications like this one

It seems to be stating:

The flight deck
and aviation facilities are designed to operate
LYNX or MERLIN helicopters. The flight deck
area is four times that of a Type 42 destroyer
– big enough to land a CHINOOK.

And

The Type 45 is designed to operate a MERLIN
HM1 or LYNX HMA 8 helicopter, armed with
Stingray anti-submarine torpedoes and Sea
Skua anti-ship missiles. Her flight deck is large
enough to land a twin-rotor CHINOOK to deliver
or embark troops or stores.

And

Aviation
T45’s war fighting capabilities will be enhanced
with the inclusion of an embarked flight
that is currently scaled to comprise a single
LYNX (Mk3 or Mk8) although the ship is also
configured to embark a MERLIN Mk1 flight.
In time, the deck will be authorised for a wide
range of other helicopters, including CHINOOK
and potentially Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV).

While on the issue of embarking "passengers"

Embarked Military Force (EMF)
An EMF increases the range of maritime and
joint operations with which the T45 may be
tasked. An EMF may support Power Projection
through Combat Operations against the land
and support Joint Operations, the protection of
UK entitled citizens, Non Combatant Evacuation
Operations (NEO), humanitarian operations,
disaster relief and defence diplomacy. The T45
will act as a Forward Operating Base (FOB) for
14 HQ Staff allowing them to plan and execute
operations by an EMF (potentially Special
Forces) and deploy and sustain 60 personnel,
and their equipment ashore, using ship’s boats
and/or organic or FOB helicopter(s).

Habitability
T45 will operate with a crew of 191, each with
their own berth in well-appointed cabins. For
the first time on board a destroyer, there are
dedicated recreation spaces
for all ranks and dedicated accommodation
and facilities for 60 Royal Marines with their
kit.

And

Command Hosting
T45 provides the planning space, IT facilities
and communications to host a 1* Maritime
Battlestaff, Tailored JFACHQ or SF Component
Commander. For Small Scale operations
especially, T45 will be able to host the
Maritime Component Commander (MCC) or
Commander Task Group (CTG)/Commander
Task Unit (CTU) for the UK Joint Task Force
Commander (JTFC), or host elements of a Joint
Task Force HQ or scaleable Joint Force Air
Component HQ (afloat). In addition, T45 may
form part of a UK national component (possibly
as CTG, CTU, Sector Air Defence Commander
(SADC) or ADC) or host the Composite Warfare
Commander (CWC) of a maritime coalition
force under the command of a Coalition JTFC.
In the post conflict phase of a Joint campaign,
T45 will offer the JTFC the opportunity to
reduce the military profile and footprint ashore
while retaining credible firepower and command
in theatre. This offers political choice, especially
in the early phases of a conflict.

And

Even without taking
additional emergency measures, T45
design provides for accommodation
margin of 45, taking into account
an EMF of 30 persons. T45 has
the administrative and IT support
to act as an Evacuation Handling
Centre and is able to overload at
least 700 evacuees for up to 48 hours
and at least 200 for over 48 hours.

Apologies if my misunderstanding has misled anyone.

Cheers.

PS I do note that the Darings are not in the 6000 tonne class.  They are actually 25% larger and displace 7500 tonnes making them displace about 2750 tonnes more than the Halifaxes or about 50% larger.  But then again the Svalbard "Corvettes" are in the 5000 to 6000 tonne range.

PPS Ex-D you were correct about my reference to the Global Corvette. 

 

[Jungle]

OP HESTIA ? Us sending supplies by ship does not make it an amphib operation. The fact that we airlifted supplies and troops into the country shows to me that , even without landing crafts, we had the capability to intervene already.

There were Troops brought in via amphibious means; about 20% of the entire Task Force was brought in by ship, and taken to the beach via those:



Ths Ship in the background is Athabaskan, where the Troops came from on that particular lift. They were flown to Jamaica, but because of airspace congestion could not be flown into theater.

I agree that OP Hestia was a permissive environment, but without amphib movement the deployment would have been an even bigger nightmare.

We need something to move Troops, vehs and supplies to a coast from the sea, without necessarily having to do "amphib assaults" or taking a piece of beach from the enemy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There were Troops brought in via amphibious means; about 20% of the entire Task Force was brought in by ship, and taken to the beach via those:



Ths Ship in the background is Athabaskan, where the Troops came from on that particular lift. They were flown to Jamaica, but because of airspace congestion could not be flown into theater.

I agree that OP Hestia was a permissive environment, but without amphib movement the deployment would have been an even bigger nightmare.

We need something to move Troops, vehs and supplies to a coast from the sea, without necessarily having to do "amphib assaults" or taking a piece of beach from the enemy.

I hope this is not an unfair question, but: What kind of vessel is that, Jungle, and from whom did we you borrow it?

 

[GAP]

Looks like an LST, probably from the Marines....

 

[Oh No a Canadian]

I hope this is not an unfair question, but: What kind of vessel is that, Jungle, and from whom did we you borrow it?

Its a Landing Craft Utility from USS Bataan

Here are two more pictures from the CF Combat Camera website.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=16397&site=combatcamera&catalog=photos
http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=16398&site=combatcamera&catalog=photos

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks very much. 

 

[a_majoor]

To develop an effective "marine" capability would involve having the proper ships more than changing the Army. A helicopter "Destroyer" or an LHD woud be needed to bunk the troops, carry the equipment and embark enough helicopters or landing craft to quickly and effectively land the troops ashore. If you want to use a Chinook, then you also need a big ship as well.
 
Thinking back a long way, the RN had impressed a bunch of cargo ships and converted them with makeshift landing pads during the Falklands war (remember the Atlantic Conveyor?) which might do in an emergency, but we would then have to be prepared to create cargo containers which can house and deploy various weapons, sensors and control stations that can be raipdly loaded onto the ship in question and made operational with a sort of turn key operation.

Either way, a great deal of effort and energy is needed to get this capability, and until there is a large change in public attituds towards the CF, funding and sustaining things for the long term, I don't see this as happening.

 

[GAP]

Thanks very much. 

Actually, I should stand corrected....the ships would be supplied by the Navy....at least in my experience, the Marines always hitch rides with the navy.... ;D

 

[Chilme]

To develop an effective "marine" capability would involve having the proper ships more than changing the Army. A helicopter "Destroyer" or an LHD woud be needed to bunk the troops, carry the equipment and embark enough helicopters or landing craft to quickly and effectively land the troops ashore. If you want to use a Chinook, then you also need a big ship as well.
 
Thinking back a long way, the RN had impressed a bunch of cargo ships and converted them with makeshift landing pads during the Falklands war (remember the Atlantic Conveyor?) which might do in an emergency, but we would then have to be prepared to create cargo containers which can house and deploy various weapons, sensors and control stations that can be raipdly loaded onto the ship in question and made operational with a sort of turn key operation.

Either way, a great deal of effort and energy is needed to get this capability, and until there is a large change in public attituds towards the CF, funding and sustaining things for the long term, I don't see this as happening.

Drumming up support for the Canadian Forces is definitely the key filling the gaps in Canadian capabilities.  The publics perception of the military is generally very different then it is.  I know mine preconceived thoughts on the CF changed rastically after I became involved

 

[Jungle]

I hope this is not an unfair question, but: What kind of vessel is that, Jungle, and from whom did we you borrow it?

As stated, they are US Navy landing crafts; we also used a smaller model:



We borrowed them because we had no way of getting the Troops from ship to shore; actually, we also re-learned that using a destroyer or a frigate for troop transport is far from ideal !!

 

[Snakedoc]

We borrowed them because we had no way of getting the Troops from ship to shore; actually, we also re-learned that using a destroyer or a frigate for troop transport is far from ideal !!

Yup, definitely not what they're made for! 

 

[GAP]

"Why couldn't we have borrowed some of them thar canoe's from Chretian's museum?