# Treasury Bd to Consider CF Amphib Ship Buy



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2005)

http://www.brandonsun.com/story.php?story_id=7136

"The Canadian navy is drafting a plan to acquire two large amphibious assault ships capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks across the seas.  The idea, which merited a passing reference in last spring's defence policy statement, is expected to go before the federal Treasury Board next year for consideration, said the director of the navy's maritime requirements...."

When do we get the Marines, or the dozens tanks for that matter?


----------



## Big T (16 Oct 2005)

And if/when we get the marines, where do they recruite them from... the Reg infantry?


----------



## daniel h. (17 Oct 2005)

Big T said:
			
		

> And if/when we get the marines, where do they recruite them from... the Reg infantry?



It said the San Antonio class require about 300 sailors, is this not about the same number as our Protecteur AORS?

Question:

If the new Joint Support Ships require one half or one third the crew the old replenishment ships do, couldn't the crew savings be used to man San Antonio Class ships?


----------



## NavalGent (17 Oct 2005)

Sailors would be used to run or "man" the ships, Marines would be the soldiers who go ashore from the ships and do army-ish stuff. It would make more sense to get infantry people to be marines, because all you have to do is teach them how to not barf when the sea gets rough. My making sailors into marines, you'd have to teach them everything that infantry folks already know how to do.

However, they'll probably just put a bunch of soldiers aboard and not even bother with the "marine" title.


----------



## Slim (17 Oct 2005)

All thses tanks, however, is another matter completely...


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Oct 2005)

Sorry, but I'll believe it when the boys are storming the shores of Tripoli.


----------



## Observer23 (17 Oct 2005)

The best part is during the Federal election debates, the PM kept going on about how Harper was going to buy these "Aircraft Carriers".  Harper was trying to get us support ships with helicopter capabilities.  Funny how a Conservative campaign point that the Liberals tried to shot down is now on the procurement scope while they are in power.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2005)

I do wish they would cut the "Assault" crap from the discussion.  As Ex-Dragoon regularly points out about aircraft carriers "assaults" require a whole lot more than just a big boat with a flat deck.  An aircraft carrier itself would be a good starting point, not to mention his much beloved Air Defence Destroyers and Joint Support Ships.

I would be happy enough if there was a transport ship available that could off-load across a secure shore, in secure shallow waters or in a secure minor port (ie one without docks and cranes and stuff).  We are a lonnng way away from contemplating assaults on defended shores.  Just getting to any shore would be a good thing.

Keep in mind the best method of getting ashore in any case is to land where the enemy isn't.  The more places you can land the more places the enemy has to defend and the less the likelihood that you are going to have to challenge them for a specific chunk of real estate.

Normandie was all about landing close enough to deep water ports which could then be secured to allow common freighters to bring in the bulk of supplies.

Dieppe was about seizing a defended port and discovered to be too costly.


----------



## Observer23 (17 Oct 2005)

Maybe it is just a matter of finding the right terminology.  Let's call it C.S.G.P. (Container Ship, Green Paint)


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Oct 2005)

Fast ferries.


----------



## Baloo (17 Oct 2005)

Non-Combat Peacekeeping Aid-Shippers?


----------



## Monsoon (17 Oct 2005)

Observer23 said:
			
		

> Maybe it is just a matter of finding the right terminology.  Let's call it C.S.G.P. (Container Ship, Green Paint)


I think the terminology current at NDHQ is BHS - "Big Honkin' Ship".


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Oct 2005)

Still can't figure out what is supposed to be done with these things. Are we going to go down south and clobber some poor bastard's private island and carry away his women and booty?   >


----------



## Haggis (17 Oct 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I think the terminology current at NDHQ is BHS - "Big Honkin' Ship".



How did you find out about that?  That paper was deemed classified!  You have clearly violated the security procedures surrounding the generation of new ABL*.

**A*cronym *B*ased *L*angauge, the exclusive domain of the upper floors of NDHQ.

Mods... over to you!


----------



## daniel h. (17 Oct 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Still can't figure out what is supposed to be done with these things. Are we going to go down south and clobber some poor *******'s private island and carry away his women and booty?     >




Perhaps someone could correct me, but it seems we put global operations ahead of national defence. Amphibious ships and so forth are for foreign encounters.

It would be nice if they could fund replacements of the much more important destroyers, FELEX, and whatever else....nuclear subs would be nice some day. > They project force much better than anything we have correct? >


----------



## bravo2 (17 Oct 2005)

This project wont take off anytime soon.They are talking about considering this project next year. By the time they finish considering it  should be another 2 years !!!! and just imagine how long to award a contract  to built it  !!!!!


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2005)

Daniel H... Nuke subs?.... we have bigger kit problems before we get to work on that.... these amphib ships are expected to provide RORO transport for a battle group going on mission AND cover off the work the Protector/ Preserver provides - replenishes & fuels onr ships at sea..... or did I miss something.

Last I heard - 11 to 13 years from planning to delivery.....


----------



## daniel h. (17 Oct 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Daniel H... Nuke subs?.... we have bigger kit problems before we get to work on that.... these amphib ships are expected to provide RORO transport for a battle group going on mission AND cover off the work the Protector/ Preserver provides - replenishes & fuels onr ships at sea..... or did I miss something.
> 
> Last I heard - 11 to 13 years from planning to delivery.....




I was just dreaming out loud...I was referring to the proposed  purchase of San Antonio Class or smaller ships in addition to JSS.

I realize that with the CF"s budget nuclear subs would take up the whole budget probably....


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2005)

hehe.... yeah.... remember - we've got a green army guy at the top right now.... we're supposed to steal all the money from the blue guys and give the army preferential treatment 
whups..... no, no... what I meant is that we're using our money and theirs is still at the Mint... ink's not quite dry yet 

Cheers!


----------



## Inch (17 Oct 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Daniel H... Nuke subs?.... we have bigger kit problems before we get to work on that.... these amphib ships are expected to provide RORO transport for a battle group going on mission AND cover off the work the Protector/ Preserver provides - replenishes & fuels onr ships at sea..... or did I miss something.
> 
> Last I heard - 11 to 13 years from planning to delivery.....



Uh, no. The ships proposed in that article are something like an LPD and they most certainly are not RORO. They require landing craft or hovercraft to get the equipment to shore. They're bloody huge and a high value asset, so you won't be seeing them anywhere near the beach. They'll be 12 or so miles off shore where they will launch the landing craft full of crunchies.

The other option that the CDS had his eye on was the LHD's like the USS Bataan  that was supporting us on Op Unison.

The JSS wasn't designed as a RORO either and it seems now that the JSS is going to end up being strictly an AOR with some sea lift capability that will require a deep water port to off load the equipment that can't be slung by the BHH's (Big Honkin Helicopters).


----------



## Jungle (17 Oct 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Last I heard - 11 to 13 years from planning to delivery.....


I believe they plan for the JSS to be operational in 2010. And according to the info I have, they want the Big Honking Ship to be sailing in 5 years...
Daniel H, about projecting power: what better way to project power then send a Naval task group consisting of an amphibious assault ship, escorting destroyer and/or frigate(s) and a submarine, carrying a Battalion-Group and attack and transport helicopters. This is what we are considering for the next few years.
Kirkhill, I'm glad they are talking about an amphibious *assault* ship. The tone is slowly changing: they used to talk about landing on secure beaches only, now they talk about unoccupied or lightly defended beaches. Big difference, and I believe we need to be able to carry out these tasks on our own.


----------



## bravo2 (17 Oct 2005)

I wonder what would be more beneficial for our army an LPD our an LHD there is a big difference in size and capacity?


----------



## Monsoon (17 Oct 2005)

bravo1 said:
			
		

> I wonder what would be more beneficial for our army an LPD our an LHD there is a big difference in size and capacity?


In terms of capacity, no. These days, all the acronyms (LPD, LPH, LST) are all pretty much made up to refer to specific projects, so they can't be compared by any measurable metrics the way Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers can. Typically, an "L" with an "H" does its landing by helicopter, and an "L" with a "D" offloads supplies or troops onto small boats for landing.  But they'll probably both have some amount of each capability.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2005)

Jungle:  I would love to be wrong on this one. 

How are the Naval types planning on adapting their task force to the role?


----------



## Monsoon (18 Oct 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How are the Naval types planning on adapting their task force to the role?


The Naval Task Group is a flexible enough concept that adding an amphibious landing ship to the mix shouldn't pose any problems.  If you can defend an AOR or an aircraft carrier, then a landing ship just becomes another High-Value Asset to protect.  Since the landing zones will be "lightly-defended" only, it doesn't sound like they want to get into shore bombardment capability beyond what the ships' deck guns currently provide (that is, very little).

Similarly, I don't think the Brigade Groups will have to change much either - am I wrong about this?


----------



## mover1 (18 Oct 2005)

Wow what a lot of speculation coming from a very poorly written article from an insignificant newspaper.
Remember Journalists call M113's tanks, and at the end of the article it states that the Navy hasn't decided what they are going to buy yet.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2005)

Fair comment hamiltongs. 

Better comment mover1.


----------



## shanks (18 Oct 2005)

drop the 'assault', what we are in need of is stratigic lift capability. Whether that be by means of a 'Big Honkin' Ship' or by air (e.g. globemaster)
we are in need of the capability to move larger numbers of troops and equipment.

Forget the tanks, but we still have LAVs, the LAV 3 Coyote and the LAV MGS (mobile gun system) and we still need a way to move them.

The other point that has been raised is the emphasis on foriegn ops. What about home defense? If one looks our soveriegnty issues, we need more ships and aircraft to patrol our coastline. In order to be a soveriegn country you must have control of your air space and coastline. That is not the case in Canada. 

My last point is lots of people say we need this and we need that and I am no exception to that. However, where is the money going to come from? cuts to health care? tax hikes?


----------



## mover1 (18 Oct 2005)

It (the money) will come from wherever it needs to come from. Canada is wealthy and if we as a country cannot affort a couple of ships then we are in deep trouble.


----------



## edadian (18 Oct 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone could correct me, but it seems we put global operations ahead of national defence. Amphibious ships and so forth are for foreign encounters.
> 
> It would be nice if they could fund replacements of the much more important destroyers, FELEX, and whatever else....nuclear subs would be nice some day. > They project force much better than anything we have correct? >



We would need amphibious ships to defend and retake our own Islands we do have a few thousand of them.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Oct 2005)

shanks said:
			
		

> drop the 'assault', what we are in need of is stratigic lift capability. Whether that be by means of a 'Big Honkin' Ship' or by air (e.g. globemaster)
> we are in need of the capability to move larger numbers of troops and equipment.



If you want "strategic lift" then you are going to have to look at a boat - inserting and sustaining a large number of troops via airplane (C-130, C-17) is beyond our capability (and stretching even the American's).


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2005)

Actually Jungle's comment got me rethinking my own earlier statement about secure landing sites.

We get to pick the time and condition of the insertions.  We may not be so lucky on the extractions.  Rugged ship with a well found defensive system doesn't sound such a bad idea.

Maybe if they had described it as a Combat Extraction Ship I would have got the message sooner ;D.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Oct 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Actually Jungle's comment got me rethinking my own earlier statement about secure landing sites.
> 
> We get to pick the time and condition of the insertions.   We may not be so lucky on the extractions.



The Aussies call it "Maneuver Operations in a Littoral Environment" (MOLE):

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2004_W/AAJ_Winter_2004_AmphibWarfare.pdf


----------



## Jungle (18 Oct 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Maybe if they had described it as a Combat Extraction Ship I would have got the message sooner ;D.


Correct... unlike Airborne ops, Amphibious ops can be carried out both ways !!!  :blotto:  ;D


----------



## daniel h. (18 Oct 2005)

Jungle said:
			
		

> I believe they plan for the JSS to be operational in 2010. And according to the info I have, they want the Big Honking Ship to be sailing in 5 years...
> Daniel H, about projecting power: what better way to project power then send a Naval task group consisting of an amphibious assault ship, escorting destroyer and/or frigate(s) and a submarine, carrying a Battalion-Group and attack and transport helicopters. This is what we are considering for the next few years.
> Kirkhill, I'm glad they are talking about an amphibious *assault* ship. The tone is slowly changing: they used to talk about landing on secure beaches only, now they talk about unoccupied or lightly defended beaches. Big difference, and I believe we need to be able to carry out these tasks on our own.




That's true....I hope it happens sooner than later.


----------



## daniel h. (18 Oct 2005)

shanks said:
			
		

> drop the 'assault', what we are in need of is stratigic lift capability. Whether that be by means of a 'Big Honkin' Ship' or by air (e.g. globemaster)
> we are in need of the capability to move larger numbers of troops and equipment.
> 
> Forget the tanks, but we still have LAVs, the LAV 3 Coyote and the LAV MGS (mobile gun system) and we still need a way to move them.
> ...




This is the thing, what about ships, even icebreakers, that can patrol the north?


----------



## ghazise (19 Oct 2005)

The proposed San Antonio Class does have effetively a RORO capabilities as with the other ships in the Gator Navy,   the stern gate when lowered can effectively acts as ramp to the pier, this is the preferred method of loading a ship and unloading an amphib,   Also without the purchase of additional equipment Hovercrafts, Expeditionary Fighting Vechicles or Landing crafts, this quasi RORO will be the only way to go ashore,   
Now in our wildest dreams if in addition to picking up two San Antonios, Canada picks up the Tarawa (it is scheduled to be retired), now you actual conduct helo-assaults.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2005)

2FtOnion said:
			
		

> Now in our wildest dreams if in addition to picking up two San Antonios, Canada picks up the Tarawa (it is scheduled to be retired), now you actual conduct helo-assaults.



Sorry that would AND IF WE ALSO HAD HELICOPTERS...


----------



## bravo2 (19 Oct 2005)

2FtOnion said:
			
		

> Now in our wildest dreams if in addition to picking up two San Antonios, Canada picks up the Tarawa (it is scheduled to be retired), now you actual conduct helo-assaults.


Recent history dictate that we should stay away from used ships   !!!!!!


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2005)

bravo1 said:
			
		

> Recent history dictate that we should stay away from used ships    !!!!!!



I dunno. Tarawa is in service and operational. The subs were mothballed for quite a while.


----------



## ghazise (19 Oct 2005)

The Tarawa is set for retirement in a couple of years, the other four LHA's will be going through extensive modifications (LHA(R)),  

theoritically, Canada puts the Tarawa through the LHA (R) program, that one ship will greatly increase the Canada's ability to project a forced entry capability anywhere in the world, "plus the Tarawa has alot of space for sea lift"

I think that would be interesting "cost assesment" picking up the Tarawa and funding the ship through modernization apposed to picking up two new San Antonios,


----------



## geo (19 Oct 2005)

Tarawa?.... 
You can't lump the tarawa in with the Upholders.... the Upholders never saw any real service and weere pretty much mothballed the minute they finished construction.

Am certain that the Tarawa would be a decent concept to persue - not clapped out, fully servicable.... interesting!


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2005)

2Ft Onion:

If we had the Tarawa - would we need the full capabilities of the San Antonios if we were to buy a pair of them as well?  In other words if we used the Tarawa as a command and helo support platform as well as a transport could be just use the San Antonios for transport alone?  If that was the case could we save on some of the gear and bodies on the San Antonios?

Trying to be a bit clearer - If the San Antonios were just floodable transports, like the Dutch Rotterdam, or even like the Brit Bays then a crew of 50 to 100 might be in order.  The San Antonios have a crew of 300-700? plus the marines.  What do all those bodies do and do we need them for our operations?


----------



## ghazise (20 Oct 2005)

I am talking about straight sea lift capabilities between the Tarawa and San Antonios, Sea lift being the primary reason to acquire amphibs, the expected couple of billions to acquire two new LPD's vs Tarawa / Tarawa w/minot refit / Tarawa with LHA(R), just off the top my head with having the the Tarawa being able to transport more equipment and troops, I think it would be cheaper to acquire the LHA than the 2 LPD's,   conditionally on acquistion price is extremely low considering the ship is paid off and it would be in interest of the US to remain to have that LHA capability with a close ally,   Sea Lift aside an LHA has so much more enabling capabilities than two LPD's, 

Honestly considering the current manning/budget and especially political issues currently with the RCN, a joint purchase a couple of RORO dual use container ships, with a partnership with Canadain commercial shipping, would be cheaper than buying amphibs, because when you get down to it, the ships are only going to be used as sea lift, not amphibious assaults/raids or helo assualts,     

Re-configuring the Navy while the Navy Canada currently has needs modernization, doesn't make sense


----------



## canuck101 (20 Oct 2005)

The youngest of the Tarawa is the USS PELELIU it was Commissioned 3 May 1980.The second being USS Nassau it was Commissioned 28 july 1979.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lha-1.htm  If they did get a refit how long would they be service.


----------



## ghazise (20 Oct 2005)

I am not even close to a Naval Architect, but from the materials engineering classes I have taken, extensive (engineering assesments) hull inspections for structural stress and corrosions, with emphasive around the well deck/ballasts, mechanical, electrical and depending on where it's home port will be Victoria or Halifax, a secound round of structural inspections would be necessary to account to different climate, the USN intends to keep the LHA in service for twenty years after the LHA(R) program, so dependant on the engineering assesments and the extent of modifications with proper maintenance about 20 years of service life,  and of course having a third independant party conduct inspections to verify the inspections of the USN and RCN, might be a good idea,

Kirkhill:  "The San Antonios have a crew of 300-700? plus the marines.  What do all those bodies do and do we need them for our operations?"  Sailors tend to stay on the ship and the if any amphib acquistion goes through, I just see the army as being passengers on the way theatre,  

As I write and try to justify the acquistion of such a large ship, an LHA or even the San Antonios seem like overkill to meet a sea lift requirement.


----------



## geo (20 Oct 2005)

Tend to agree with you 2ftOnion,
San Antonio class of ship is "waaaay" more than our current navy requires.
As far as I know, Canada is not looking to storm the beaches of ___________ (fill in blank) at this or any other time. 
If we look at our deployment to East Timor or Sri Lanka, argument can be made for capability to deliver goods to locations that do not have port facilities.... conventional RORO construction would not be of much use in that case....

Don't know - I'm a green guy..... I only use the blue stuff to wash (when I have to)


----------



## ghazise (20 Oct 2005)

Once you have a sealift capability, design your deployment with your resources,  When we deployed to A-stan in 2001, we used our amphibs for ship shore to Pasni, Pakistan and used inter-theatre air transport to reach kandahar province, our retro-grade from theatre was using theatre air transport to Kuwait city,,,  a combination of RORO sea lift (to theatre) and C-130's (within theatre) this combination will be able to overcome every situation besides a forced-entry capability;


----------



## Jungle (20 Oct 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> As far as I know, Canada is not looking to storm the beaches of ___________ (fill in blank) at this or any other time.


Read this passage in the article: 


> "We're looking at being more engaged on a global scale," said Capt. Peter Ellis.
> 
> "I think it's a critical requirement, especially if we're going to conduct operations at short notice."
> 
> ...


Seems pretty clear to me: the CF want the ability to land troops even with light opposition. What's the point of deploying hundreds of Troops and millions worth of kit if a dozen kids with guns are going to prevent them from landing ?? If you are the first Troops to arrive in theater, how do you ensure the beach is secure ? Will you wait until someone else secures the area before deploying ? 
Again, I believe we need to have both the RO-RO and the amphibious assault capabilities in low-to-medium intensity conflict areas.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Oct 2005)

I read through all the posts on this thread and one thing that keeps coming out is how well balanced the comments are - 

I note that many ask what will this ASSET do? How will it be employed? etc I believe we need a full white paper on defence,
not a quasi-strategy 

Simultaneous to this another emailer sent me these questions which I pass on below for all of us on the border of the Transformation Zone which I maintain have been obscured by the big machine at 101 Col By Drive

I suspect its all an adhoc program to pour major $$$$$$$ into sea base facilities on the East Coast

All that said - I was in Chapters Yesterday and skimmed through a new book by StephenClarkson on the LIBERALS! (google search here http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=The+Big+Red+Machine+Liberal+Party) -- one of the points I picked up is that the voters are ignoring all parties and so although this may be a shine up DND ploy for the next election - there is a real gap in expectations and delivery on the part of our rulers - aka the one party of the one party state.

Maybe the long march of the men in Suits is ending???????

Anyway -- on to the Check list

******************* Questions to test the info we seem to get from DND *******************

- Canada's military role in the world.
- Requirements for the defence of Canada.
- Requirements for responding to natural disasters within Canada and externally.
- Interrelationship of air/land/sea branches and associated command structure.
- Interrelationship and role of regulars and reserve forces (who does what and how does it fit together.
- Required staffing levels for regulars and reserves. 
- Interrelationship between quasi-military forces (Coast Guard, RCMP, regional police, etc.) and CF.
- HR and compensation strategy.
- Requirement for a littoral (marine assault) capability.
- Deployability requirements (airlift / sealift).
- Interoperability with partners (US, NATO, etc.).
- Long term staffing requirements and strategy.
- Long term equipment requirements and strategy. --------------------------->ie consider ships last - _or is the ship really a foil for C17s _   which can be used to complement/assist our provincial requirements/ friends and allies in all weather in all parts of the world.......


----------



## edadian (21 Oct 2005)

I believe the ships are to complement the strategic lift aircraft. We need both.

The C-17 is its own foil. It isn't a strategic lift aircraft it is a large tactical according to the company. The C-5 is Americas latest strategic lift plane and it has less capacity to the Ukraine/ Russian AN124-100M. Stick a Canadian avionics package on the Antonov and it would be perfect.

For tactical we just buy new Hercs or second hand US ones. The Americans hardly break them in before replacing them. Getting the British extension package could be feasible.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/#Transport_/_Tanker_Aircraft


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Oct 2005)

Good last post

Its ALL needed - but the past being our only guide to the future - with a government not really DND friendly, its really a trip to Vegas Gambling Casino!


----------



## ghazise (21 Oct 2005)

Interesting paper;

http://www.navyleague.ca/eng/ma/papers/Canadian_Amphibious_Capabilities%20_PHaydon.pdf


----------

