# Time for Mobile Landing Platform for Canada???



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2013)

At $500m this converted tanker might be a great multi-purpose ship for the Canadian Navy.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dfad249c4dfc


----------



## cupper (4 Nov 2013)

Indeed an interesting concept. But one drawback I see is that the use of "jump jets". Correct me if I am wrong (or out of date) but vertical takeoff for a Harrier greatly reduces the combat load that it can carry. I'm not sure if the same reductions in takeoff weight occur with the F-35 VTOL version.

But it is my understanding that the reduced load was the impetus for the Brits developing the ski-jump deck for their smaller carriers like the Ark Royal.


----------



## CougarKing (4 Nov 2013)

Speaking of "oil-tankers converted to carriers," these ships remind me of the World War II-era _Rapana_ class merchant aircraft carriers, otherwise known as MAC ships. These were essentially merchant ships that kept their original crew and cargo, but added a flight deck, a naval air complement and AA gunners.

War is Boring defence blog



> *Oil Tanker-Turned-Aircraft Carrier Is Key to American Naval Expansion
> 
> Giant dock ship can carry jump jets, copters, hovercraft—and for cheap  *
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2013)

During the Falklands War the Brits flew Harriers off of container ships.I guess if the distance to target isn't great then the payload issue isn't a problem.Mission radius for the F-35B is 463 miles.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Nov 2013)

T6,
Perhaps a thread merge is in order with the thread on the same topic below? I didn't realize you beat me to posting this exact same article, although I did a search using the term "MLPs" prior to posting.  :facepalm:

http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/112730/post-1267432.html#new


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2013)

I put it here because it would give the CF a capability that you don't currently have.It would be helpful in disaster relief or peacekeeping.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Nov 2013)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> At $500m this converted tanker might be a great multi-purpose ship for the Canadian Navy.
> 
> https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dfad249c4dfc



They should have bought the Ark (or the Fearful or Insipid) before the British flogged it; and the 'ski jump' was critical to its effectiveness as a small but strategic asset:

Harrier capable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski-jump_ramp#Ski-jump_ramp

Heli capable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_class_landing_platform_dock

At best, this new US ship would be a field expedient helicopter carrier. And I'm sure the rotary wing wallahs wouldn't be keen on landing on that deck in tough weather given the towering superstructures on either end. But now, I am officially well out of my lane...

Lid... coat... taxi


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2013)

This is, I guess, one of the "lilypad" sort of ships that Kirkhill wants for his "broad spectrum" navy.

I would love to see a capability to deploy, support and sustain a _joint_ navy/army/air force which would, indeed, probably need a helicopter carrier of some sort ... but first we have to be able to patrol our own domestic waters ~ three oceans ~ and that, I fear, will become problematic next year.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2013)

Canadian coastal waters can be patroled by air either by the Aurora or Global Hawk type UAV.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2013)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canadian coastal waters can be patroled by air either by the Aurora or Global Hawk type UAV.


Until it's time to stop someone from doing something in a way that doesn't need a Hellfire missile.

I bow to sailors with WAY more expertise than I have, but to me, "surveillance" =/= "physically imposable presence" - sort of like the "needing boots on the ground to hold terrain" thing, no?


----------



## CougarKing (5 Nov 2013)

Perhaps this concept can be merged with the 3D printer concept in coming decades? Another thread had the idea of using carriers as factories with 3D printers that made parts for UAVs, etc.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is, I guess, one of the "lilypad" sort of ships that Kirkhill wants for his "broad spectrum" navy.
> 
> I would love to see a capability to deploy, support and sustain a _joint_ navy/army/air force which would, indeed, probably need a helicopter carrier of some sort ... but first we have to be able to patrol our own domestic waters ~ three oceans ~ and that, I fear, will become problematic next year.



You just want a Canadian Marine Corps, right?  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Nov 2013)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> During the Falklands War the Brits flew Harriers off of container ships.I guess if the distance to target isn't great then the payload issue isn't a problem.Mission radius for the F-35B is 463 miles.



The two converted container ships that operated in the Falklands acted as back up transport: The Harriers they carried were unarmed: they rotated to the "big-deck" carriers to refuel and get their weapons before a mission. The Harriers that needed some front line maintenance then disarmed on the "big-deck" and rotated to the container ships for their maintenance/repairs.

And it is true that Harriers load is much smaller for vertical ops as opposed to  short take-off or jump-assisted short take-off. That is why, even on the big US LHA/D's, they have to ditch ordinance and sometimes fuel if they are still too heavy when they get back from a mission where they didn't have to use their weapons. 

Personally, I can't see any use for the ships proposed here, for about 50% more each, we could get French Mistrals or South Korean Dokdo, either one of which would be a lot more useful than one of these "Lilly pad" (which, by the way, if you read the specs, cannot carry much personnel).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Nov 2013)

You could take a typical RO/RO ship, reduce the height by one deck, add a jump and halve the stern superstructure to allow for a into the wind land on the stern.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is, I guess, one of the "lilypad" sort of ships that Kirkhill wants for his "broad spectrum" navy.
> 
> I would love to see a capability to deploy, support and sustain a _joint_ navy/army/air force which would, indeed, probably need a helicopter carrier of some sort ... but first we have to be able to patrol our own domestic waters ~ three oceans ~ and that, I fear, will become problematic next year.



Wouldn't mind adding a couple/few "floating islands" to the mix.  Who sez we couldn't patrol our own "domestic" waters with the aid of something like these - in addition to actual patrol ships?   Have you seen the sea area we are responsible for covering with SAR services?






Justify them not as warships but as aids to navigation much like the old  lightships.  






I can't see them as war vessels taking part in a Cyprus base NEO from someplace in the Middle East.

I can see them as semi-autonomous vessels with minimal crews - probably Coast Guard - holding station on the sea lanes.

Part of their purpose could be extending the range of Canada's helicopters as the Hibernia platform has.



> On December 4th 2002 CH-149 Cormorant 149909 from No 103 Search & Rescue Squadron at Gander made a 1200km flight in high winds and severe icing conditions to rescue a Norwegian seaman with head injuries and a broken leg. Major Gilbert Thibault, the squadron CO, flew the Cormorant more than 600 kilometres out into the Atlantic to make the rescue.
> 
> Thibault said that the 1200km round trip would have been too much for the older Labrador SAR chopper. Even the Cormorant had to refuel at the Hibernia oil production platform on each leg of the journey. He added that the search and rescue crews were extremely pleased with the way the Cormorant is performing.



Link

WRT the Canadian Marine Corps  - I'd be happy to have the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps capable of deploying by helicopter anywhere the RCN operates as well as being able to be transported by fixed wing assets anyplace on land.

The RCAC, RCA, RCE, well if they want to come along to the party maybe they should figure out how to sling a Leo under a Cormorant.....  >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Nov 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could take a typical RO/RO ship, reduce the height by one deck, add a jump and halve the stern superstructure to allow for a into the wind land on the stern.



That is exactly how the French came up with the Mistrals.


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is, I guess, one of the "lilypad" sort of ships that Kirkhill wants for his "broad spectrum" navy.
> 
> I would love to see a capability to deploy, support and sustain a _joint_ navy/army/air force which would, indeed, probably need a helicopter carrier of some sort ... but first we have to be able to patrol our own domestic waters ~ three oceans ~ and that, I fear, will become problematic next year.



Or now? ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Nov 2013)

I propose we re-launch Project Habakkuk and copyright it as a uniquely Canadian approach to solving this issue because, of course, we built the first prototype and floated it in Lake Louise:


Project Habakkuk or Habbakuk (spelling varies; see below) was a plan by the British in World War II to construct an aircraft carrier out of pykrete (a mixture of wood pulp and ice), for use against German U-boats in the mid-Atlantic, which were beyond the flight range of land-based planes at that time.

The idea came from Geoffrey Pyke who worked for Combined Operations Headquarters.


Geoffrey Pyke was an old friend of J.D. Bernal, and had originally been recommended to Lord Mountbatten, Chief of Combined Operations, by the Cabinet minister Leopold Amery. Pyke worked at Combined Operations Headquarters (COHQ), alongside Bernal, and was regarded as a genius by Mountbatten.[1]

Pyke conceived the idea of Habbakuk while in the US organising the production of M29 Weasels for Project Plough, a scheme to assemble an elite unit for winter operations in Norway, Romania, and the Italian Alps.[1] He had been considering the problem of how to protect seaborne landings and Atlantic convoys out of reach of aircraft cover. The problem was that steel and aluminium were in short supply and required for other purposes. Pyke realized that the answer was ice, which could be manufactured for only 1% of the energy needed to make an equivalent mass of steel. He proposed that an iceberg, natural or artificial, be levelled to provide a runway and hollowed out to shelter aircraft. From New York, Pyke sent the proposal he had composed on Habbakuk via diplomatic bag to COHQ with a label forbidding anyone apart from Mountbatten from opening the package. Mountbatten in turn passed Pyke's proposal on to Churchill, who was enthusiastic about it.[2]

Pyke was not the first to suggest a floating mid-ocean stopping point for aircraft, nor even the first to suggest that such a floating island could be made of ice: German scientist Dr. Gerke of Waldenberg proposed the idea and carried out some preliminary experiments in Lake Zurich in 1930.[3] The idea was a recurring one: in 1940 an idea for an ice island was circulated round The Admiralty but was treated as a joke by officers, including Nevil Shute, who circulated a memorandum that gathered ever more caustic comments. The document had to be retrieved just before it reached the Sea Lord's inbox.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Nov 2013)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That is exactly how the French came up with the Mistrals.



Man, never realized me be so smart, I to can bid on design of floaty thing with flying things on top?  8)


----------

