# My ideal navy (aka not holding my breath aka not in my wildest dreams)



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Mar 2005)

I believe there should be an expeditionary force on each coast. Consisting of the following:
1 Amphib (with up to 8 heavy lift helos and 4 utility/armed helos)
1 AOR (2 helos)
1 Ro Ro
1 AAD Destroyer (2 helos)
3 FFHs (1 helo per ffh)
1 SSK

In addition we should have a sovereignty/training force (coastal) which can rotate units out of the expeditionary force. This will also have one per coast. This would consist of the following:
4 MCMs (if need be MCDVs)
1 AAD (2 helos)
2 FFHs (1 helo per unit)
5 OPVs
1 SSKs

Units on Independent Ops...used to form additional TGs, single ship deployments and augment any units requiring reinforcement:
1 AOR (2 helos)
1 Ro-Ro
2 AAD (2 helos each)
4 FF (1 helo each)
4 MCM
4 OPVs
1 SSK

Drydocked units or units thats have just returned from deployments and units undergoing maintenance and upgrades. This is what I would like to see combined for both coasts:
1 Amphib
2 RO-RO
1 AOR
1 AAD
2 FFHs
1 SSK
3 MCMs
4 OPVs
1 ICEBREAKER

Emergency Response Force. On each coast:
1 Hospital ship (helipad)
2 Ro-Ro (helipad)
1 ICEBREAKER (helipad)

 So my magic wand would give us a fleet of:
Amphibious-3
AORs- 3     [_Berlin_ class] changed to _Supply_ class
Ro-Ros- 9
AAD Destroyers- 7   [stretched _Type 124 _ frigate with 48 SM2s vice 24 modified for Flag Staff]
FFH-16     [_Type 124 _ frigate]
SSKs-6   [if we can't get the _Upholders_ functioning then _Type 212A _ or _Scorpenes_]
OPVs-18   [_Type 130 _ Corvette with RBS15 removed]
MCMs-15     
Hospital Ships- 2
ICEBREAKERS- 3 (armed with 76 mm and 2 20mm Oerlikons)
Naval aviation- ASW Helos-32 (6 additional for attrition)
                              - utility/armed-8   (2 additional for attrition)
                              - heavy lift- 16 (4 additional for attrition)

Quite the wishlist but I think it would give us what we need to be a major player like the government wants us to be. Now some notes.
Expeditionary Forces-1)   I have 3 FFHs. I would have 1 detached from that force with its towed array sonar constantly streamed to alert of any sub threat.
2) The Ro-Ro would be used to carry supplementary comsumables (i.e fuel. food and ammo for the landing force)
3) The Amphib could be any class but I would hope it could carry at least 500-750 men landing force with vehicles and organic helos.
4) Command....the escort and fighting strength would be commanded from the AAD. The landing contingent from the Amphib.
5) SSKs would be fitted with AIP
6) ERF would be kept at extended readiness and be deployed on an as needed situation.

Coastal Force 1) OPVs and MCMs as patrol units would be the organized units. FFH and AADs would be there to provide heavier firepower if needed.

Independents Ops 1) Usually deployed with coalition or allied navies, on UN or NATO ops. Escorts for ERF.

Drydocked units-1)   rough guess probably much smaller.
2) Units not used would be placed in Independent Ops or the Coastal Force.

Emergency Response Force- 1) used for DART type missions, humanitarian or all out war.
                                                            2) Icebreaking and northern support ops.

EDIT: This post will be moodified as I come up with different ideas.
a) Yeah I know the edit has a lot of German equipment but having worked with the Germans and been on their ships all I can say is awesome.
b) Changed _Berlin_ class to _Supply_ class with comparison to show why in following post
c) 20 mm Oerlikons can be replaced with 25 mm Bushmasters to allow greater flexibility when operating with USN units.
d) Icebreakers fitted with 76mm to help break up bergs and to disloge any possible Danish errm I mean anyone trying to lay claim to our Northern islands.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Mar 2005)

That is a heavy hitting fleet. Why so many MCM's and Ro-Ro's? And, are all of these ships fleet units crewed by the mob?

I like the DG to FFH ratio- roughly 2:1. 

Are the AOR's large - ala Lewis and Clark?


----------



## TCBF (15 Mar 2005)

I like your fleet, but one phrase comes to mind - "Not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary."  You would have to press-gang the crews.  Rum, Buggery, and The Lash just doesn't have that much appeal any more.  "The lower classes are not joining with their usual a l a c r i t y." (Apologies to "Billy Bishop Goes To War").

Tom


----------



## Torlyn (15 Mar 2005)

My ideal Navy?  Has me in it as a MARS officer.  

T


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Mar 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> That is a heavy hitting fleet. Why so many MCM's and Ro-Ro's? And, are all of these ships fleet units crewed by the mob?
> 
> I like the DG to FFH ratio- roughly 2:1.
> 
> Are the AOR's large - ala Lewis and Clark?



Hey Whiskey,
  My reasoning for so many MCMs is I strongly feel in the future mine warfare will be even more prevalent and I feel its far better to be proactive rather then reactive.
  The RO-ROs and the Hospital ships I think could be manned by a combined civillian crew under contract from DND and naval reserves backed by a few reg force types. For the most part only 3-5 RO-ROs will be operational at any one time. AORs I was looking for or less at the new _Berlin_ class the German navy is using.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Mar 2005)

_Berlin_ class vs _Supply_ Class

Complement-         139 plus 94 staff        176 civillian and 27 military
Speed                     20                                22
Fuel                       9540 tons                156000 barrels (not sure how many tons that is)
Ammo                    160 tons                  1800
General Cargo          280 tons                  250 tons
Water                    450 tons                  20, 000 gallons
Refridgerated cargo  unknown                400 tons

*from Janes Fighting Ships


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Mar 2005)

I'm so glad you posted this....despite the redundancy of many of my questions, this is exactly what I was trying to ascertain.

Thanks so much,



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Mar 2005)

Canadianization of my wishlist ships:

_Type 130_ Corvette:
-RBS15 removed
-76 mm replaced by 57mm Bofors
-27mm Mausers replaced by 20 mm Oerlikons
-fitted for but not with CIWS
-helipad only

_Type 212A _   or _Scorpene_ class SSK:
-modifed for MK48 ADCAPs
-special ops configuration

_Type 124 _ frigate and _Type 124 stretched _ variant destroyer:
-1 helo vice 2 in FFG version; 2 for DDG version
-frigate 57 mm; destroyer 76mm> 5 inch guns
-replace 27mm mauser with 20mm Oerlikon
-remove 1 RAM replace with phalanx

Any other mods I thought of are listed in brackets in my first post.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Mar 2005)

The more I think about this model, the more concerned I am with the critical requirement that the boundaries of "sense" and "engage" for some of the major surface warfare ships outperform current systems, andindeed, the rest of the fleet. To me, a high volume mixed capability of medium and ER weapons would be essential for AAW. Those systems ought not to come at the expense of PDMS and CIWS on each platform. Small caliber naval guns would also be fitted for close protection only.

For this purpose, I would like to see a few DDG [3] as low in the water high speed missile batteries, and I would go so far as to suggest such a ship dispense with the hanger and go with a simple pad of the least possible size. I would keep the superstrucure to an absolute minimum. I am envisioning a vessel of around 7500 tons, and a battery of between 96-128 silo's. In essence, a mini Kirov. 

I think Alpha Whiskey and Alpha Echo would hang their hat on this class of ship, other than that there would not be a command responsibility assigned.         

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Mar 2005)

You thinking along the lines of the Arsenal Ship concept for AAD?


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Mar 2005)

Yep, but the differences would also be glaring. 

Unlike the USN version, "my" ship would sense- track-acquire. It would not rely upon third party targetting, but perhaps might have that capability. [I realize the EW ramifications of this-it's a trade off!] The ship would not have the big gun or the land attack capability provided by the Tomahawk. I think such a ship would give OPFOR much to think about in terms of launching an air attack on a fleet of any size which might be operating without organic air cover. I must admit that I stole that little theory from the Arsenal Ship. It's a pity the USN was forced to drop the program. Perhaps with the recent budget cuts to the USN, the ship might be resurrected.

This would be a ship defined principally by it's defensive capability yet it would still project a virtually unparalleled "presence" in theatre.

Without a doubt, it would require a reliable ASW escort- ala CPF.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Mar 2005)

Mybe my proposed Type 124s stretched could be give a Tomahawk capability as well. All the above would definitely have Harpoon II.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2005)

I like that Ex-D.  You know why - Joint Ops!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Mar 2005)

I am curious about something from the community that wears green. Is it preferable to have missiles like Tomahawks and Harpoon II or would you prefer cannon fire 3-5" or even the 155mm some navies are trialing?


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2005)

Probably both.  Ideally, I would like my Artillery support to have both Guns and Rockets.  The ability of Ship launched cruise missiles to support land warfare (even if it is just a small team "painting" a target) adds exponential value to the Navy as a branch of strategic projection.  As well, a ship launched missile may be able to come from a direction (or be used at a time) when land or air based platforms are unavailable for "reaching out".

I remember McGregor making an interesting pitch for a joint force "Strike Officer" who cordinated Naval fire (guns and missiles) along with Air Strikes (fixed/rotary wing/UAV), and Army Deep Strike systems (artillery, etc).  Definately "force multiplier" kind of stuff.


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2005)

Training......dry docks.........people.............$$$...........schools..refits...berths........warehouses.......

Great concepts (really) but totally unrealistic with today's current infrastructure on the coasts.

I would like to see Joint Navy/Army ports at Montreal (due to mast head height)for Petawawa and maybe Moncton for Gagetown, where the Army would have a secure established place to load and unload with Barracks, stores, space etc.

Drive up, load up and leave, all in one shot. No yellow school buses rumbling down the jetty with our infantry in it.

I am also a big fan of coastal missile batteries as a force deterrent and psych factor.

Crow


----------



## jmacleod (18 Mar 2005)

Agreed - all points of view on an ideal Navy are very valid. The Berlin class German Navy vessels
are indeed impressive, and the inclusion of RO-RO ships a very good idea. My associates and I
have advocated for the past three-four years that the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) become
part of the Canadian Naval fleet, with responsibility to the senior Naval officers on each Canadian
Coast, with ultimate responsibility to MND. The CCG was efficent and effective under Transport
Canada, but the change to Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been fraught with problems, not
the least of which is the Federal Government's lack of interest, and new plans to "privatize"
more essential CCG services - which are becoming more significant in Canada's security.MacLeod


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2005)

The Canadian Coast Guard is an invisible entity to the Navy.

Agreed, lets get the Coast Guard online similar to the US. I have 12 years of sea time and maybe worked with them once or twice.

The US Coast Guard has a loaded Spruance, tons of cutters, icebreakers and a full air wing.

lets do it!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Mar 2005)

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> Training......dry docks.........people.............$$$...........schools..refits...berths........warehouses.......
> 
> Great concepts (really) but totally unrealistic with today's current infrastructure on the coasts.
> 
> ...



Oh very unrealisitic just my viewpoint as I mentioned in my intial post. Which_ Spruance _ was transferred to USCG control?


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2005)

missed your point...............


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Mar 2005)

With all the Talk about LPDs lately from Gen Hillier here is a comparison between 3 of the ones most likely to attract the attention of the people that control the purse strings.

Class(Nation of origin)-                                                San Antonio(US)
Dimensions-                                                                     208.4x31.9x7
Displacement (with full load)-                                 25,300
Complement-                                                                361
Military Lift-                                                                     720 troops, 2 LCAC, 14 AAAV
Armament-                                                                     MK41 VLS (64 ESSM)not fitted, 2xRAM, 2x30mm, 2x12.7mm
Speed/Range-                                                               22
Aircraft-                                                                           1 CH53 or 2 CH46 or 1 MV22

Class(Nation of origin)-                                              Albion(UK)   
Dimensions-                                                                   176x28.9x7.1                                                          
Displacement (with full load)-                               18,500                            
Complement-                                                                325                                                 
Military Lift-                                                                     305 troops/710 overloaded, 67 vehicles, 4 LCVP or 2 LCAC (in well dock)/4
                                                                                             LCVP on   davits
Armament-                                                                     2x20mm, 2 Goalkeeper(30mm) CIWS                                                                
Speed/Range-                                                               20/8,000 nm at 15 kts                                                      
Aircraft-                                                                            3 Sea King (Chinook capable)
*built to military standards

Class(Nation of origin)-                                                 Galicia (Spain)                               
Dimensions-                                                                      160x25x5.9                           
Displacement (with full load)-                                  13, 815                      
Complement-                                                                   115                                                            
Military Lift-                                                                        543 Troops, 6 LCVP+4 LCM, 130 APC or 33 Tanks                                       
Armament-                                                                        1 20mm Meroka CIWS, 2x 20mm Oerlikon
Speed/Range-                                                                  20/6,000 nm at 12 kts                                                       
Aircraft-                                                                               6 AB212 or 3 Sea Kings
*built to commercial standards


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2005)

How we can we intergrate this sealift from the inland Brigades? 

Marine Type Base? 

Maybe Shearwater to a Joint-Air/Land/Sea Base-move the infantry


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Mar 2005)

It seems the LPD17 would not support they type of heldet Hillier is interested in. [actually, none of these ships are capable of say.. 2 Chinooks and 3 or 4 Griffons]

With all of those ships, the ground pounders are going to be very tightly packed when you consider the vast amount of personal gear they have to haul around these days. 

Why the large difference in compliment between the Galicia and the Albion? Is this how the Spanish are cramming more troops and vehicles into a ship 15 percent less tonnage than the Albion? 

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Mar 2005)

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> How we can we intergrate this sealift from the inland Brigades?
> 
> Marine Type Base?
> 
> Maybe Shearwater to a Joint-Air/Land/Sea Base-move the infantry




A Bde complex built at the South End of CFB Gagetown, in the village of Welsford may be a better choice.  Close to the Gagetown Training Areas.  Close to an all season port; St John.  Away from the Combat Arms School and CFB Gagetown infrastructure and not interferring with operations conducted there, other than Range Bookings.  Close to Rail (which have been removed from CFB (G)) and Road systems.


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2005)

Thats the future in my mind for Joint ops, lets make the navy/army seamless. 

The Aircraft can always fly out to meet us, like the US does.

If u want space and save money, buy a commercial RO-RO, convert it to Army specs. 

Let the us (navy) equip it, Sea Sparrow, CIWS, ESM/ECM of course and Radars.

Airforce-convert the top for some Helo's

There u go...sea lift cap.

The Frigates can protect it and we are ready to go.


----------



## FSTO (18 Mar 2005)

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> The Canadian Coast Guard is an invisible entity to the Navy.
> 
> Agreed, lets get the Coast Guard online similar to the US. I have 12 years of sea time and maybe worked with them once or twice.
> 
> ...



I think you may be confused with the Hamilton Class, looks somewhat similar but is smaller in size


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2005)

Hamilton sounds right, they look similiar. I must have gotten them confused.

I read somewhere though (I think Janes) that the USCG was going to get a Spruance for a Blue water cap, and participate in foreign ops. (the Gulf)
(maybe they already have)


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Mar 2005)

Re George Wallace's comment on building a brigade camp at Welsford.

Originally, as the army urban legend has it, the plan was to build the Camp Gagetown complex, which was designed as a mobilization base for a division, at Welsford. However the then-Chief of the General Staff of the Canadian Army moved it to Oromocto, after he discovered some people with inside knowledge, both military and civilian, were busily buying up land around Welsford in the hope of making a killing. 

Further to the size and layout of the original camp area at Oromocto was designed to allow the rapid construction of temporary accommodation for the division to be deployed to Germany. There is a large network of underground utilities that could have been easily tapped into, and the open sports fields, etc between what were once unit lines would have been built up. All this formed part of the briefing to the VCDS circa 1978-1979 when we were trying to get the CTC complext constructed.

Back to the point, I would have to be convinced of the utility of expanding outside the present base boundaries, but that is a personal gut reaction.


----------



## FSTO (18 Mar 2005)

Actually the USCG is getting an entire new group of ships called the "Deepwater Replacement Project"

Deepwater Capability Replacement Project
Source: G-D

The United States Coast Guard is a military, multi-mission, maritime service within the Department of Homeland Security and one of the nation's five armed services. Its core roles are to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic and security interests in any maritime region in which those interests may be at risk including international waters and America's coasts, ports, and inland waterways. Deepwater missions typically require a long-term, continuous, on-scene presence, often with deployments away from home stations for several months on end. Deepwater missions also demand the ability to operate in severe environments - from Arctic to tropical and equatorial climates - 24 hours a day, every day, wherever the Coast Guard's humanitarian, law enforcement or military capabilities are needed.

Current Deepwater assets face technological limitations, have excessive operating and maintenance costs, lack essential capabilities in speed, sensors, and interoperability, and consequently limit overall effectiveness and efficiency. To continue to meet America's 21st century maritime threats and challenges, the Coast Guard initiated the Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) Program, the largest and most innovative acquisition in the Coast Guard's history.

The focus of this innovative "system of systems" acquisition is not just on new ships and aircraft, but rather on an integrated approach to modernizing existing legacy assets while transitioning to newer, more capable assets, with improved command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities. Focusing on system-wide capabilities rather than assets, IDS will provide the capability and capacity necessary to contribute to the Coast Guard's maritime domain awareness as well as to meet Maritime Homeland Security missions that could occur in ports, waterways, coastal areas, and extending seaward.

The Coast Guard awarded the Deepwater contract to Integrated Coast Guards Systems (ICGS), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, in June 2002. The fully implemented Deepwater system will include three new classes of cutters (Maritime Security Cutter, Large, [WMSL] formerly known as the National Security Cutter; Maritime Security Cutter, Medium [WMSM] formerly known as the Offshore Patrol Cutter; and the Patrol Coastal [WPC], formerly known as the Fast Response Cutter) and their associated small boats - the Short Range Prosecutor (SRP) and the Long Range Interceptor (LRI), a new fixed-wing manned aircraft fleet, a combination of new and upgraded helicopters, and both cutter-based and land-based unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). In addition, all of these assets will be linked with state-of-the art C4ISR capabilities and will be supported by an integrated logistics management system.


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2005)

The utility of having two marine bases would be the realization of rapid deployment capability for real time, diasters and exercises and a J Cap that can move without the ad hoc attitude of Bluebird buses/ SMP vehicles rolling down the 417.

Let's look at CFB Kingston as a departure point for the J Cap. CFJOG and infrastruce already in place.

Make the berths and space avail and lets deploy! (have low mastheads for the locks) 

The frigate escorts can meet them in the Gulf of St Lawrence. 

Petawawa and Gagetown seem to be a ghost of the CDS's vision.(which I like)


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2005)

Good stuff guys - two points:

1.   We all seem to agree that Ex-Dragoon's proposal is far-off in terms of what we can do right now.   But do any of you feel we can start moving into the general direction of that level of Naval capability?   Where would we start?   Perhaps a fantastic idea is easier to digest if we break it down into small parts?

2.   Regarding amphibious based units and seamless integration of naval and land capabilites - I'm a big supporter of this idea and it factors heavily into some work I'm doing right now.   With all the chat on basing "forward" assets, whether it be equipment sets or units, should we also factor the Pacific Ocean as well?


----------



## FSTO (18 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Good stuff guys - two points:
> 
> 1.  We all seem to agree that Ex-Dragoon's proposal is far-off in terms of what we can do.  But do any of you feel we can start moving into the general direction of that level of Naval capability?  Where would we start?  Perhaps a fantastic idea is easier to digest if we break it down into small parts?
> 
> 2.  Regarding amphibious based units and seamless integration of naval and land capabilites - I'm a big supporter of this idea and it factors heavily into some work I'm doing right now.  *With all the chat on basing "forward" assets, whether it be equipment sets or units, should we also factor the Pacific Ocean as well?*



Well, duh!?!?!!?!?!?!

Despite Ottawa's focus to the east, there is a mighty big area to the west that has seen quite a bit of Canadian intrest over the years. But since us westerners have this nasty habit of thumbing our noses at the Natural Governing Party, they closed the one base on the coast that could support the Army, Chilliwack. 

Unless you decide to build a base in Vancouver, then Chilliwack is the way to go. Keep the Navy in Esquimalt but when you have to move troops, load them up at the Delta Terminal in Richmond (no choke point at the Lions Gate Bridge and no travel through downtown Vancouver)


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2005)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well, duh!?!?!!?!?!?!



lol - my question was supposed to be a rhetorical "hellooo?" type.     



> Despite Ottawa's focus to the east, there is a mighty big area to the west that has seen quite a bit of Canadian intrest over the years. But since us westerners have this nasty habit of thumbing our noses at the Natural Governing Party, they closed the one base on the coast that could support the Army, Chilliwack.
> 
> Unless you decide to build a base in Vancouver, then Chilliwack is the way to go. Keep the Navy in Esquimalt but when you have to move troops, load them up at the Delta Terminal in Richmond (no choke point at the Lions Gate Bridge and no travel through downtown Vancouver)



I agree with that.   Chilliwack in itself would be an excellent area, especially if we could get some more training areas.   Considering that it is in the Mountains and has access to even larger mountains, the temperate rainforests of BC (with the potential to train with the Brits in Brunei for jungles), and the Pacific littoral, it would be the perfect base for a Light Force unit that is ready to jump off and deal with scenarios (and terrain) that would pop up throughout much of the Pacific Rim.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Mar 2005)

I am no naval architect or have any sort of engineer background so if 
the following construction times seem to be overly optimistic please 
forgive me. For my navy I am not even going to speculate where these 
ships will be built (whether here in Canada or abroad) but hopefully 
will give you an idea on how we could replace our navy.

*2006:*
Laid down-
Hull#1 Stretched Type 124 Frigate (AAD Destroyer)
Hull#1 Supply class AOR
Hull#1 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#2 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#1 Ro-Ro
Hull#1 Galicia class LPD

*2007:*
Laid down-
Hull#2 Stretched Type 124 Frigate (AAD Destroyer)
Hull#3 Stretched Type 124 Frigate (AAD Destroyer)
Hull#3 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#4 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#1 Hospital Ship
Hull#2 Supply class AOR

*2008:*
Laid down-
Hull#1 MCM
Hull#2 MCM
Hull#3 MCM
Hull#4 MCM
Hull#1 SSK (Type212A or Scorpene)
Hull#2 SSK (Type212A or Scorpene)
Hull#2 Ro-Ro
Hull#3 Ro-Ro
Hull#1 Icebreaker
Hull#2 Galicia class LPD
Launched and fitting out-
Hull#1 Stretched Type 124 Frigate (AAD Destroyer)
Hull#1 Supply class AOR
Hull#1 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#2 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#1 Ro-Ro
Hull#1 Galicia class LPD

*2009:*
Laid down-
Hull#4 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#5 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#5 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#6 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#3 Supply class AOR (class complete)
Hull#4 Ro-Ro
Hull#5 Ro-Ro
Hull#3 SSK (Type212A or Scorpene)
Hull#1 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#2 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#5 MCM
Hull#6 MCM
Hull#7 MCM
Hull#8 MCM
Launched and fitting out-
Hull#2 Stretched Type 124 Frigate (AAD Destroyer)
Hull#3 Stretched Type 124 Frigate (AAD Destroyer)
Hull#3 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#4 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#1 Hospital Ship
Hull#2 Supply class AOR
Commissioned into service-
Hull#1 Stretched Type 124 Frigate (AAD Destroyer)
Hull#1 Supply class AOR
Hull#1 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#2 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#1 Ro-Ro
Hull#1 Galicia class LPD
Retired from Service-
HMCS Iroquois
HMCS Protecteur
HMCS Halifax

*2010:*
Laid down-
Hull#6 Ro-Ro
Hull#7 Ro-Ro
Hull#6 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#7 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#7 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#8 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#3 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#4 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#5 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#4 SSK (Type212A or Scorpene)
Hull#5 SSK (Type212A or Scorpene)
Hull#2 Icebreaker
Hull#3 Galicia class LPD (class complete)
Launched and fitting out-
Hull#1 MCM
Hull#2 MCM
Hull#3 MCM
Hull#4 MCM
Hull#1 SSK
Hull#2 SSK
Hull#2 Ro-Ro
Hull#3 Ro-Ro
Hull#1 Icebreaker
Hull#2 Galicia class LPD
Commissioned into service-
Hull#2 Stretched Type 124 Frigate (AAD Destroyer)
Hull#3 Stretched Type 124 Frigate (AAD Destroyer)
Hull#3 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#4 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#1 Hospital Ship
Hull#2 Supply class AOR
Retired from service-
HMCS Athabaskan
HMCS Algonquin
HMCS Preserver
HMCS Vancouver
HMCS Ville de Quebec

*2011:*
Laid down-
Hull#9 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#10 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#11 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#8 Ro-Ro
Hull#9 Ro-Ro (class complete)
Hull#9 MCM
Hull#10 MCM
Hull#11 MCM
Hull#12 MCM
Hull#2 Hospital Ship (class complete)
Hull#6 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#7 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#8 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#6 SSK (Type212A or Scorpene)(class complete)
Launched and fitting out-
Hull#4 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#5 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#5 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#6 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#3 Supply class AOR (class complete)
Hull#4 Ro-Ro
Hull#5 Ro-Ro
Hull#3 SSK
Hull#1 OPV
Hull#2 OPV
Hull#5 MCM
Hull#6 MCM
Hull#7 MCM
Hull#8 MCM
Commissioned into service-
Hull#1 MCM
Hull#2 MCM
Hull#3 MCM
Hull#4 MCM
Hull#1 SSK
Hull#2 SSK
Hull#2 Ro-Ro
Hull#3 Ro-Ro
Hull#1 Icebreaker
Hull#2 Galicia class LPD
Retired from service-
HMCS Kingston
HMCS Glace Bay
HMCS Nanimo
HMCS Chitcoutimi

*2012:*
Laid down-
Hull#12 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#13 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#3 Icebreaker (class complete)
Hull#13 MCM
Hull#14 MCM
Hull#15 MCM (class complete)
Hull#9 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#10 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#11 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Launched and fitting out-
Hull#6 Ro-Ro
Hull#7 Ro-Ro
Hull#6 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#7 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#7 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#8 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#3 OPV
Hull#4 OPV
Hull#5 OPV
Hull#4 SSK
Hull#5 SSK
Hull#2 Icebreaker
Hull#3 Galicia class LPD
Commissioned into service-
Hull#4 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#5 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#5 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#6 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#3 Supply class AOR (class complete)
Hull#4 Ro-Ro
Hull#5 Ro-Ro
Hull#3 SSK
Hull#1 OPV
Hull#2 OPV
Hull#5 MCM
Hull#6 MCM
Hull#7 MCM
Hull#8 MCM
Retired from service-
HMCS Edmonton
HMCS Shawinigan
HMCS Whitehorse
HMCS Yellowknife
HMCS Victoria
HMCS Toronto
HMCS Regina

*2013:*
Laid down-
Hull#14 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#15 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#16 Type 124 Frigate (class complete)
Hull#12 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#13 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#14 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Launched and fitting out-
Hull#9 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#10 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#11 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#8 Ro-Ro
Hull#9 Ro-Ro 
Hull#9 MCM
Hull#10 MCM
Hull#11 MCM
Hull#12 MCM
Hull#2 Hospital Ship 
Hull#6 OPV
Hull#7 OPV
Hull#8 OPV
Hull#6 SSK 
Commissioned into service-
Hull#6 Ro-Ro
Hull#7 Ro-Ro
Hull#6 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#7 Stretched Type 124 Frigate
Hull#7 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#8 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#3 OPV
Hull#4 OPV
Hull#5 OPV
Hull#4 SSK
Hull#5 SSK
Hull#2 Icebreaker
Hull#3 Galicia class LPD
Retired from service-
HMCS Goose Bay
HMCS Moncton
HMCS Saskatoon
HMCS Windsor
HMCS Montreal
HMCS Fredricton

*2014:*
Laid down-
Hull#15 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#16 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#17 OPV(Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)
Hull#18 OPV (Type 130 Corvette with RBS15 removed)(class complete)
Launched and fitted out-
Hull#12 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#13 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#3 Icebreaker 
Hull#13 MCM
Hull#14 MCM
Hull#15 MCM 
Hull#9 OPV
Hull#10 OPV
Hull#11 OPV
Commissioned into service-
Hull#9 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#10 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#11 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#8 Ro-Ro
Hull#9 Ro-Ro 
Hull#9 MCM
Hull#10 MCM
Hull#11 MCM
Hull#12 MCM
Hull#2 Hospital Ship 
Hull#6 OPV
Hull#7 OPV
Hull#8 OPV
Hull#6 SSK 
Retired from service-
HMCS Brandon
HMCS Summerside
HMCS Cornerbrook
HMCS Winnipeg
HMCS Calgary
HMCS St. John's

*2015:*
Launched and fitting out-
Hull#14 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#15 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#16 Type 124 Frigate 
Hull#12 OPV
Hull#13 OPV
Hull#14 OPV
Commissioned into service-
Hull#12 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#13 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#3 Icebreaker 
Hull#13 MCM
Hull#14 MCM
Hull#15 MCM 
Hull#9 OPV
Hull#10 OPV
Hull#11 OPV
Retired from service-
HMCS Charlottetown
HMCS Ottawa

*2016:*
Launched and fitting out-
Hull#15 OPV
Hull#16 OPV
Hull#17 OPV
Hull#18 OPV 
Commissioned into service-
Hull#14 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#15 Type 124 Frigate
Hull#16 Type 124 Frigate 
Hull#12 OPV
Hull#13 OPV
Hull#14 OPV

*2017:*
Commissioned into service-
Hull#15 OPV
Hull#16 OPV
Hull#17 OPV
Hull#18 OPV 

*will add names of MCDVs later*

**forgot Amphibs**


----------



## Navalsnpr (22 Mar 2005)

I wonder what the price tag would be for that procurement scheme??

God would that would be a good schedule to have!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Mar 2005)

Ballpark guess 12-15B....


----------



## Navalsnpr (22 Mar 2005)

That's actually pretty good....

Lets get some lotto tickets!


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Mar 2005)

Plus a mighty huuuge annual budget to operate the fleet.     But, hey were a rich country with all sortsa' non-essential luxuries we can apparently afford.


----------



## STONEY (31 Mar 2005)

Not to mention another 20, 000 hairybags.

You know you shouldn't smoke crack . My wildest dreams indeed..

Toodles.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Apr 2005)

Been awhile, so I figured I would bring you up to date on where my line of thinking is.

Projected Personnel totals:

Ship class          Number in class        Crew per ship     Crew per class
Type 124 AAD                 7                          255                   1785
Type 124 FFG                  16                        225                    3600
Type 130 OPV                18                          65                    1170
MCM (Hunt Class)             15                          34                     510
Type 212A SSK                 6                           27                    162            
Galicia LPD                         3                          115                   345
Hospital ship                       2                          250                   500
Ro-Ro                                9                            20                  1800
Ice-breakers (Healy class)      3                           70                   210

Total:                                79                                             10,082

the numbers aren't perfect but it gives a rough idea. Don't forget you will have crew on leave, courses, sick etc. So figure on a navy with a TES of maybe 11-12,000.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2005)

The TES seems low, despite the fact the total in column 3 is about 1500 over!! [Ro-Ro figures] I would think the FMU's on each coast would significantly balloon from their present strength. Presumably the fleet schools would expand a tad as well, unless evening courses were re-instituted? Where do the shads fit in again?


----------



## hugh19 (5 Apr 2005)

Don't forget to add in the sea/shore ratio which would mean about another 5000 people above your 11 to 12.


----------



## GK .Dundas (6 Apr 2005)

ex dragoon you 'd like the current German Navy well I think "Id like the the current Japanese Navy with some enhancements.....yeah I'm greedy. ;D


----------



## NCRCrow (6 Apr 2005)

dreamer.............it has taken almost 8 years to get 4 subs out.................


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Apr 2005)

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> dreamer.............it has taken almost 8 years to get 4 subs out.................





> My ideal navy (aka not holding my breath aka not in my wildest dreams)


----------



## mr_jangles (9 Apr 2005)

how come no one said we soud have kilos


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Apr 2005)

mr_jangles said:
			
		

> how come no one said we soud have kilos



Because maybe I as the original author of this thread does not like them. It also goes with the ideal why so many people are so against buying Antonovs or Illuyshin aircraft to provide atrategic airlift, the possibility of poor quality spare parts and the distance of a that supplyline for those parts. The next reason why we should not get the kilo is if you look at all the nations that sail them they are nations we could or our allies could find themselves in conflict with. Friendly fire chances go up even more!


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2005)

mr_jangles said:
			
		

> how come no one said we soud have kilos



I don't want to have to decide if it's a freindly or ennemy kilo before i drop a Mk 46 on it !!


----------



## NCRCrow (13 Apr 2005)

The US might like have Canada to have Kilo's to train against???


----------



## aesop081 (13 Apr 2005)

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> The US might like have Canada to have Kilo's to train against???



I refer you to my post right above yours and to Ex-Dragoon's post above mine !!!


----------



## NCRCrow (13 Apr 2005)

How many torps have we dropped in the last 50 yrs...ooops ....Iroquois....OP APOLLO Roto 2

I was just throwing that out there............ ;D


----------



## aesop081 (13 Apr 2005)

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> How many torps have we dropped in the last 50 yrs...ooops ....Iroquois....OP APOLLO Roto 2
> 
> I was just throwing that out there............ ;D



LOL....i've heard that story a few times now actualy.

Although i agree with the training oportunity that you pointed out, the inherent risk is that submarines tend to be underwater and hard to identify.  Alo of countries out there have russian subs.  Some of those countries may be less than freindly. if we were ot start using the same subs as potential ennemies that would limit the deployement of our own subs.  its difficult enough to positively identify submerged subs...never mind trying to tell who's it is when it's all the same model.

Its not because we have not dropped any tops that we never will.....


----------



## NCRCrow (13 Apr 2005)

ASW is a dying discipline in the CF maritime environment. It used to be our niche in NATO but we have let that die.

From a sailors standpoint the emphasis definately is ASUW and MIO.

In the GOO/SAG, the MPA's were justing doing Surpic missions for us.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Apr 2005)

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> ASW is a dying discipline in the CF maritime environment. It used to be our niche in NATO but we have let that die.
> 
> From a sailors standpoint the emphasis definately is ASUW and MIO.
> 
> In the GOO/SAG, the MPA's were justing doing Surpic missions for us.



ASW is a dying art due to the lack of training oportunities, limited number of aircraft, old electronics and too many operational tasks. ASUW is taking an icreasing importance in the operational focus of the MPA community but ASW is still an important skill to maintain as it is very perishable.  If we could victoria class going, the training oportunities will be better for ASW. But thats from an MPA guy's perspective.


----------



## DJL (26 Jun 2005)

First off, I must say that this topic has brought up many intresting ideas/concepts/dreams and even though some are out there, IMHO it's good to think and plan big........in the hopes that when the other side (in this case government) counters with their "plan", hopfully we end up with everything we _need_ and some of what we would _like_. 

Who would have honestly thought three years ago that a serving, Canadian CDS would bring up the prospect of a Canadian Amphib for instance?

Now the concepts that stand out the most to me, are Ex-Dragoon's proposal of setting up two expeditionary forces on each coast, a substantial increase in MCM assets, and the introduction of OPVs to the navy. So for the purpose of this topic, I hope to expand on Ex's ideas and at the same time making parts of them more fiscally palatable to a government and throw out a few of my own unorthodox ideas for target practice.

First off I'll steal Ex's idea of two expeditionary forces (one on each coast) and add my own twist. Now ideally, as I'm sure most would agree, these two forces should be able to operate as independently as possable and plausible, no need to re-fight Jutland or invade Iwo Jima, but if the need to defend Canadian, overseas intrests alone, where to arise, we could at least make a respectable effort in doing so.

Now all this talk of independent Canadian actions is not meant to take away from the more likely scenario, in which we would still be a part of a larger coalition. With that being the case, our expeditionary forces should be able to seamlessly intergrate with our allies, namely the Yanks. Now since any major conflict we may find ourselves a part of in the future, the Americans will, in all likelyhood, also be involved, I think we should further move towards the ability of total intergration within the USN in a time of war.

This could mean purchasing more American kit, implementing more American doctrine and tapping into, at a greater extent, the vast American fleet logistics train.........let the government decide as to what level though.

So my model of a Canadian, expeditionary force would be as follows:

1 LHD
1 DDG
2 FFH
2 LCS
1 SSK
1 AOR

So the combined resources, dedicated to expeditionary warfare, of the two martime commands would be double the above figures.

Now my unorthodox approach would be that the expeditionary force would be forward based (say Western Australia) and made up of assists (split roughly 50/50) from MARPAC and MARLANT  

The reason behind my madness, should be clear........

-less transit time

-Closer to any current or potential hotspots

-The potential to employ some sort of "Blue/Gold" (ala USN boomers) system of crew rotation

-Reduced burden on MARPAC and MARLANT for a major deployment


As for the rest of the navy, I'll borrow a page off the RN and call it the "Home Fleet". All remaining tasks (ie training, NATO commitments, sovereignty and maintenance etc) will be drawn out of the remaining pool of ships, which would be equally spread between the the two coasts. So each coast would have (not counting the expeditionary assists) :

1 DDG
4 FFH
4 LCS
2 SSK

(MARLANT would also receive two armed Icebreakers)

Then my final command would be organised along the lines as the RFA and MSC with each coast having:

1 Oilers
1 Dry stores ships
2 RO/ROs
plus various Auxiliary vessels (ie tugs, tenders etc)


So the entire fleet would be as follows:

2 LHD     Wasp "plug plus"
4 DDG     Burke "flight IIIs"
12 FFH    next generation Canadian design
12 LCS    off the shelf, American littoral combat ship
6 SSK     type 212?
2 Ice Breakers  USCG Healy class?
2 AOR    American AOX/ next generation Supply class
2 Oilers   off the shelf design (Henry Kaiser?)
2 AKE     Lewis and Clark?
4 RO/ROs Bob Hope class?


I've got my flash protection on so fire away


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Jun 2005)

DJL my only question regarding your vision is why buy Henry Kaisers and Lewis and Clark class ships when your Supply class can carry a variety of cargoes including dry stores, fuel, food, bullets etc?

Ok so I have another question in regards to your vision lol. Why use Wasp class? Yes they are good ships and can embark Harriers but would it not be more econmoical for us to adopt an LPD instead?


----------



## DJL (26 Jun 2005)

> DJL my only question regarding your vision is why buy Henry Kaisers and Lewis and Clark class ships when your Supply class can carry a variety of cargoes including dry stores, fuel, food, bullets etc?



I'd intend on offering up our four, civilian manned tankers and stores ship to the American's Military Sealift Command with an eye on in corpatering them into the US system of shuttle ships, which in turn resupply the larger US AOEs and in my plan would also supply our two large AORs well on deployment.



> Ok so I have another question in regards to your vision lol. Why use Wasp class? Yes they are good ships and can embark Harriers but would it not be more econmoical for us to adopt an LPD instead?



I chose the extended Wasp class, since as of date, it's the only Amphib on the market that could carry an entire, light army battlegroup, a squadron of transport helicopters, a squadron of F-35Bs, plus a handful of utility and attack helicopters, not too metion, a 500 bed hospital (Which are only dwarfed by the two USNS hospital ships).

As for the price, sure it would cheaper to go with an LPD, but as you mentioned (among others), the CDS's vision looks to be towards an Amphib that can support the troops with helicopters, I expanded that vision to included fast air and a large hospital for the pongs.

With that said, I'm not married to the Wasp idea (though I am starting to get a wee bit smitten with it), I'd be more then willing to hear any other combo of ships to form the center of our expeditionary force.........Maybe an LPD-17 teamed with 25-30K ton Vtol CVL (like Italy's new baby carrier) or if money is tight (as it is) perhaps a single, smaller LHD like what the Aussies are buying or like what was shown on the Dutch website.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Jun 2005)

DJL said:
			
		

> I chose the extended Wasp class, since as of date, it's the only Amphib on the market that could carry an entire, light army battlegroup, a squadron of transport helicopters, a squadron of F-35Bs, plus a handful of utility and attack helicopters, not too metion, a 500 bed hospital (Which are only dwarfed by the two USNS hospital ships).



More importantly, will there be room for enough beer to keep 3000 Canucks happy for a 6 or 8 month deployment?

This is a ship with a crew of ~1100, plus a combined army/af contingent of aroun 1800~ for a total approx. 2900 souls all told. Where do all these people come from, because I have a hard time believing there are that many willing participants in the army/af who would be willing to go to sea for the duration that these types of ships routinely perform. Having a ship like this sitting around in the dockyard so the crews can balance work/life is not an option, because this is a ship that must be routinely at sea in order to maintain skill sets, especially in a small military establishment like ours.


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Jun 2005)

Whiskey,

I think you've hit one of the hardest nails right on the head.

Where do we get the people???

I personally think that it will be hard enough to man whatever new AOR type ship we end up getting, let alone a baby carrier or some sort.

Perhaps selling the MCDV's off to some other nation (before their lives are fully expended) and using that money to put towards a Litorral patrol vessel (construction of which would allow some shipyard experience to be maintained.)  with smaller crews than the current MCDV's, allowing easier crewing of them.

The beer is certainly an issue, but with replenishment containers of Keiths, we can get along.  (As long as no more Heiniken comes on board!)

I think that the Wasp class is a bit of a pipe dream.  If we got two of them, that'd mean 2000 sailors (Plus the training establishments, the support, etc) more to our navy to man them!  

Besides, can you think of the parking nightmare?  It takes 15 years to get a pass now...imagine having an extra couple thousand sailors in Halifax????

Anyhow, glad you have your anti-flash gear on.  

NavyShooter


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Jun 2005)

Navyshooter, the problem with selling off the MCDVs is we will lose what MCM capability we have and in this era of littoral ops where mines are a preferred weapon can be afford to give that up?


----------



## NavyShooter (28 Jun 2005)

Hey Ex,

I think losing the MCM capability to gain a better Littoral capability would be a worthwhile trade-off.  

The lessons learned in design and use of the MCDV's could be put to use in building an improved one, with a bit more capability than those we have now.  (And selling these ones off to another nation to help fund some better patrol craft would be a good idea!)

In truth, I think that dreaming for anything beyond the AOR's on the horizon is a bit much for our Navy.  What we have is what we've got, and the addition of major vessels hasn't even begun yet.  Getting some good quality patrol vessels will add significantly to our capabilities, and are within the grasp of the budget constraints we have.

NS


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Jun 2005)

What about an airborne towed suite like the USN installed on a few of their Sea Dragons. If an easily installable plug and play system could be found, that may be a partial solution.* If we had a half dozen kits, plus a half dozen properly constructed and kitted minesweepers, we would have a very flexible and deployable capability. 

While we often talk about minesweeping, what about mine laying? I couldn't think of a better way to deny our arctic regions than the threat of a capability to rapidly sow a mine field in the near arctic approaches. 

Cheers.

edit: what I mean to say here, is can a few [6] of the Cyclones be rigged to tow the Mk 105 minesweeping sled, the Mk 103 Mech Minesweeping system and the interface the ASQ-14 side scan sonar. All of this kit is fitted to the MH-53E Sea Dragon. If this equipment can fitted on an as required basis, and a certain number of crews trained and kept proficient, we would gain a valuable, deployable capability that suits both the defence of Canada and can be used on other more global operations.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jul 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> What about an airborne towed suite like the USN installed on a few of their Sea Dragons. If an easily installable plug and play system could be found, that may be a partial solution.* If we had a half dozen kits, plus a half dozen properly constructed and kitted minesweepers, we would have a very flexible and deployable capability.
> 
> While we often talk about minesweeping, what about mine laying? I couldn't think of a better way to deny our arctic regions than the threat of a capability to rapidly sow a mine field in the near arctic approaches.
> 
> ...



If we were going to take 6 out of the pool so to speak that would be a big rreductionin fleet assets. Ships are going to sea now without an air det.   Not too mention what kind of stresses the Mk 105/Mk 103 would have on the Cyclone itself. The problem I see with using helos as a minesweeping platform is their on station time. A minesweeper can stay on station for days if not longer and at slower speeds I believe would be more thorough then an aerial unit. Thats not to say we should not get a variant of theCyclone that can do the job, just have a seseparaterder from the current or have a follow on order.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jul 2005)

SAM 69 makes the point in the Air Force thread that the 48 or 49 are possible [likely?] contenders for the army medium lift helicopter. I gather from the FAS website that the mine detection equipment is snap in and snap out, since the Sea Dragon has other missions assigned to it as well:  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/h-53.htm - [how about that 55 troop capacity ].

I have no idea what kind of stress the sled would put on the Cyclone, I guess it would depend on a whole lot of variables. 

So, I would think that if an extra 6 airframes are picked up as part of the medium/heavy lift package then some airframes would be available, not only for mine hunting, but for other missions as well. It would appear that a rear ramp is essential for the mine hunting role and I would imagine the troop carrier would be a rear ramp model as well. 

Time on station: can't argue with that other than to add that a contribution in and of itself in the form of a JSS with at least 4 helo's, 2 of which might be at least initially dedicated in an operation to sweeping for mines be feasible.   Still, I recognize it would strain the aircrews to double task them. I would imagine this sort of task would burn up a significant amount of aviation fuel, not to mention the rather hazzardous practice of using a floating gas station as a platform from which to conduct aerial mine hunting operations. 

Was it the Iwo Jima that was eventually tasked with mine hunting before lay up?


----------



## DJL (31 Oct 2005)

> More importantly, will there be room for enough beer to keep 3000 Canucks happy for a 6 or 8 month deployment?



That point in non-negotiable  



> This is a ship with a crew of ~1100, plus a combined army/af contingent of aroun 1800~ for a total approx. 2900 souls all told. Where do all these people come from, because I have a hard time believing there are that many willing participants in the army/af who would be willing to go to sea for the duration that these types of ships routinely perform.



First off, I understand the sheer numbers in personal needed to make my above "Ideal Navy" work are quite staggering and in the context of the CF unrealistic. With that said, if the CDS aimed high and told the government this is whats needed to carry out your demands of the military ,with something akin to my above proposal and was then bargained down by the government to a couple of small LHD/LPDs, 3-4 replacement AORs, 15-16 future surface combatants, some subs and perhaps some OPV/cutters, would you consider the navy losers?

As for your second point, you raise a good question. If the navy were to acquire a couple of phibs....how would we use them? Extended floats like the United States and to a lesser extent the British? Or would we use the phibs as transports that have the ability to land their cargo on a beach?

Now if we went with the USMC style of deployment of "X" number of months at sea, I don't forsee having problems with finding "willing participants in the army/af", as long as these deployments figured into these two services regular overseas deployments/rotations. For the airforce, I'd see this as an air detachment of a larger magnitude and for the army as a roto that included stops in more desirable places (ie. Hawaii) then what the poor buggers are accustomed to these days.  




> Having a ship like this sitting around in the dockyard so the crews can balance work/life is not an option, because this is a ship that must be routinely at sea in order to maintain skill sets, especially in a small military establishment like ours.



I see what you're saying, and yes, keeping the ships at sea is the most ideal way to maintain certain skill sets, but is not the only way. For example, back when we had Maggie, then Bonnie, we cross-decked and had exchange programs for our flight crews with the USN and FAA, so I don't see why this couldn't be reborn in some fashion today(if the need was there).


----------

