# we need bigger navy ?



## Chris101 (11 Nov 2004)

Don't you guys think we need a bigger navy ..yes i understand we are a peacekeeping army ..but still we got both Atlantic and Pacific to watch out for .i think we should start investing money in our military .because i got a feeling countrys are going to start something soon .we should start mobalising now what do you guys think ?


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Nov 2004)

Chris101 said:
			
		

> .because i got a feeling countrys are going to start something soon .we should start mobalising now what do you guys think ?



Please provide a short synopsis of your analysis which led to this conclusion, discussion of overall force increases should be based on a commonly understood premise of the justification for doing so in the first place.

Thank you.


----------



## NavyGrunt (11 Nov 2004)

While I would like a MUCh larger Navy- i understand that its not happening anytime soon. We need a smarter Navy. perhaps a list of priorities for our Navy in the current world climate and then a catering of our resources accordingly. I would really like to see a proper coast guard set up. Maybe one joined to the American Coast Guard. A north American coast guard if you will. EX what do you think?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Nov 2004)

Chris101 said:
			
		

> Don't you guys think we need a bigger navy ..yes i understand we are a peacekeeping army ..but still we got both Atlantic and Pacific to watch out for .i think we should start investing money in our military .because i got a feeling countrys are going to start something soon .we should start mobalising now what do you guys think ?



Sigh...while peacekeeping is a big part of our job thats not our prime role. Defence of Canada and Canadian interest abroad is our main missions. You also left out the Arctic as part of our territorial waters.
Look through this forum and you will find many peoples thoughts and opinions on the navy.


----------



## Heatwave (12 Nov 2004)

Before we get a bigger Navy, we have to be able to provide manning for what we have now.  This, in itself, has proven to be difficult.  Anyone that has served on a Navy vessel knows the dread of coming to work to a "Critical Manning" message.  This, unfortunately, can happen a few times a week for some trades.  Until we get those that are capable of sailing, and not just wearing the Navy DEU, we'll continue with shortages.  JMHO

CHIMO!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Nov 2004)

The problem is they have to make people want to stay in the navy. We see good operators leave every year because they had enough of the bull crap, the senior NCOs and Officers are aware they just don't want to do anything about it.


----------



## Alex252 (12 Nov 2004)

*We need a smarter Navy* 
Whats wrong with the people we have now?


----------



## NavyGrunt (12 Nov 2004)

Alex252 said:
			
		

> *We need a smarter Navy*
> Whats wrong with the people we have now?



 i dont mean "we" are dumb- I mean we have to accept the fact that we will never have the funding(unless theres another huge conflict) to make a massive Navy presence. SO I believe that we should prioritize and have our Navy specialize according to what we can do well wilth the money we have. But Im a one hook so my opinion doesnt matter LOL. If we did this we could make us world leaders in certain areas and form a symbiotic relationship with other Navies.....not so we depend on them but because we dpend on each other....maybe its pie in the sky but it would be nice.

There is also a retention problem as well as Ex. pointed out.


----------



## Alex252 (13 Nov 2004)

I see just a misunderstanding


----------



## Navalsnpr (17 Nov 2004)

It is difficult to keep the manning in the Navy as we speak. 

Yes it would be nice to see a larger Navy with expanded capabilities, but when 80% of your countries population doesn't live near the ocean, they don't tend to join because they don't understand what the Navy is all about.

The majority of the personnel that are in the Navy come from Atlantic Canada and BC.

We are definitely a smart Navy. There are many complex systems onboard and quite a few trades complete cross training. Like a Company has to evolve with the times, the Navy has evolved with less manpower and equipment in order to provide the best possible force.


----------



## Staud (25 Nov 2004)

Bigger Navy? ..with the longest coastline in the world, I would say the answer would be yes, however as long as the growth starts with personnel and the boys can stop jumping from one ship to another just to fill the bunks and as long as the training standards don't slip. We are the best because we train to be the best. After 9 years in a Naval uniform I'll take 1 Cdn Killick over a bunch of sailors from another country any day.   True proffesionals, mind you what else would one expect from the senior service.. HA HA


----------



## aesop081 (25 Nov 2004)

The senior service ????  I beleive that the artillery own that title, A & B batteries were the first canadian military units


----------



## Staud (25 Nov 2004)

Senior Service is the Navy.. with regards to a service, not soo much just in Canada....just ask any old salt...however Army pers always try to use logic, history..etc.. to debate it.  I believe the term comes from our British childhood..         

For e.g. 
Royal Canadian Navy - 1910
the Militia Act of Canada - 1890ish


----------



## Inch (25 Nov 2004)

IIRC, the navy being the senior service stems from the Royal Navy, remember there was a time that the British ruled the seas. Since we technically weren't our own country until 1965 (prior to that we were a Dominion in the Commonwealth), most if not all of the RCN/military traditions came from the British system, thus the RN is the senior service in the UK so that meant that the RCN was the senior service in Canada. I think that whole senior service thing became a moot point after Unification.


----------



## Navalsnpr (25 Nov 2004)

Yes the Senior Service is the Navy,  followed by the Army then then finally the Air Force.


----------



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> The senior service ????   I beleive that the artillery own that title, A & B batteries were the first canadian military units



As others have said, navy gets to lead on parade. Artillery gets seniority within the army, which comes second.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Nov 2004)

Back on topic please.


----------



## Disillusioned (26 Nov 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> While I would like a MUCh larger Navy- i understand that its not happening anytime soon. We need a smarter Navy. perhaps a list of priorities for our Navy in the current world climate and then a catering of our resources accordingly. I would really like to see a proper coast guard set up. Maybe one joined to the American Coast Guard. A north American coast guard if you will. EX what do you think?




We need an independent coast guard--joint means American, they love to dominate.


----------



## tabernac (26 Nov 2004)

> Maybe one joined to the American Coast Guard. A north American coast guard if you will.


An excellent idea.



> We need an independent coast guard--joint means American, they love to dominate.


Only it they knew we were just "hitching a free ride" if you will. 

Ex-Dragoon or Navy personnel, what would be your ideal Canadian Navy?


----------



## NavyGrunt (26 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> We need an independent coast guard--joint means American, they love to dominate.



We have to much coastline and not enough money- its this basically or nothing.


----------



## Mountie (26 Nov 2004)

If funding was availble, a big IF, how about this?

Two fleets, Atlantic and Pacific, each with 3 Expeditionary Task Groups, a Fast Sealift Task Group of 2 modern fast sealift vessels and a Naval Reserve Coastal Defence Task Group with 6 MCDV.  One Expeditionary Task Group could be deployed at all times.  One would be assigned to home defence and operational training, and the third in a training and rebuilding phase after returning from deployment.  They would each work on 6 month rotations.

Each ExpeditionaryTask Group:  (all frigates would be based on the Halifax City-Class hull)
1 x Air Defence & Command Frigate (with Dutch command and air defence suite, see www.naval-technology.com)
3 x Patrol Frigates (Current Halifax Class with mid-life upgrade that is planned)
1 x Support Vessels (based on City-Class hull **see www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-modprop.com)

Each fleet would be supported by a Maritime Air Wing:
1 Maritime Patrol Squadron with 9 CU-163 Altair Maritime Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
1 Maritime Helicopter Squadron with three Detachments each of 5 CH-148 Cyclones supporting each Expeditionary Task Group (1 per ship).

Total Ships & Aircraft:
  6 Air Defence & Command Frigates 
18 Patrol Frigates
  6 Support Vessels
12 MCDV
  4 Fast Sealift Vessels

30 CH-148 Cyclone Maritime Helicopters
18 CU-163 Altair MUAVs

Sell off or scrap the four Tribal-Class destroyers, the three Protector-Class AOR vessels, and the four Victoria-Class submarines to help pay for the new ships that are required.  

With an even bigger budget it would be nice to purchase two of the Royal Navy's small aircraft carriers that they will be replacing in about 10 years.  However, this would also require replacing Air Command's CF-18 Hornets with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  But without a miracle and a Conservative Government this would never happen.


----------



## DJL (26 Nov 2004)

> With an even bigger budget it would be nice to purchase two of the Royal Navy's small aircraft carriers that they will be replacing in about 10 years.  However, this would also require replacing Air Command's CF-18 Hornets with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  But without a miracle and a Conservative Government this would never happen.



You would need more than a miracle to fit JSF on board the Invincibles.....


----------



## hugh19 (27 Nov 2004)

Mountie

I like some of your idea, it fits my thoughts is someways too. But I can really tell you don't know very much about naval operations. That is not a insult just a statement

 For example a extended work period will take almost a entire year. With destoring, restoring,  OTT, weapons certs, machinery trial and I could go on. If you think you could retain anyone bytelling them that out of 3 years posted to a ship they would be gone for a year straight and at least another 6 to 8 months on top of that, your mistaken.

The SFU  support ships are a bad joke and nothing more. I mean these guys actually state that the Frigates have 2 cruise desiels and seperate fuel tanks for the LM2500 gas turbines. There idea of putting vehicles that high up in a ship would make it so top heavy that it would capsize from the wake of a RHIB.


The numbers of ships for each task group is very good though. But I would replace the MCDV's with actual minesweepers or OPV's or both. Plus getting rid of the subs is a stupid and dangerous idea. Also there are only to Protectuer class ships.


----------



## NavyGrunt (27 Nov 2004)

sledge said:
			
		

> The numbers of ships for each task group is very good though. But I would replace the MCDV's with actual minesweepers or OPV's or both.



This is key- you cant give any real taskings to MCDV's they are good for training ONLY. No matter what anyone trys to sell you on them. Perhaps some sweeping ops but thats it. They are a training tool only. If you were to implement a new navy strategy and give the reserves a real role- then you would need to outfit them with new ships.

Im not slagging the naval reserve. I love it. But the equipment is lacking. Too slow and underarmed. The coastal defence role performed by the reserves now is more of a "pat on the head" by the big brother reg force navy and to give us something to do.


----------



## Inch (27 Nov 2004)

Mountie, you keep coming up with these plans but your inexperience in some matters really shows. First, we don't always send 4 ships to sea. Standing NATO Fleet Atlantic is an example of this, we'll send one or two ships, but that's usually it. Also, as Aaron White explained, it won't fly with the Army if you tell them they're going to be in a state of high readiness for 12 months out of every 18 months, so why would it fly with the navy? The Air Force is about the only service that is on a medium to high state of readiness at all times but that's due to the nature of our jobs, we have extremely parishable skills and must practice continuously.

As for the Air Dets, again, you obviously have no idea how they work. The two MH Sqns are broken down into Dets.  Each ship gets a Det, one helo per Det except the Destroyers which can have 2 helos and AORs which can carry up to 3. The reason for this is the same reason you wouldn't have one Capt for two ships, the Dets operate individually from each other, just like a ship's company. The Det commander is part of the aircrew and has a normal flying job within the Det. Each Det is separate entity, a Det is attached to a ship when it sails, other than that it's back on shore flying as part of the Sqn. We also don't keep our own aircraft, unless you're deployed you could fly any aircraft on shore. You also forgot about aircraft for training, servicing and attrition. In your model we'd actually need closer to 50 helos. Force generation is necessary and you need helos to do it, simulators can't do it all especially when it comes to the front seaters. There isn't a simulator in the world that can emulate an aircraft better than 80%, if you want to practice in a 100% accurate environment, the real deal is the only way.

Also, MP does a whole lot more than flying around and looking at stuff. They are ASW platforms just like MH. They drop sonobuoys into the water that can be active or passive and they also carry torpedoes (little tidbit for all y'all, only 3 aircraft in the CF carry offensive weapons, Hornet, Aurora and Sea King). MP can also do SAR searches, who's going to push the Survival kit out the back of a UAV? 

Anyway, that's my thoughts on it, take 'em or leave 'em

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Nov 2004)

> Two fleets, Atlantic and Pacific, each with 3 Expeditionary Task Groups, a Fast Sealift Task Group of 2 modern fast sealift vessels and a Naval Reserve Coastal Defence Task Group with 6 MCDV.   One Expeditionary Task Group could be deployed at all times.   One would be assigned to home defence and operational training, and the third in a training and rebuilding phase after returning from deployment.   They would each work on 6 month rotations.


Why have your sealift in a seperate command, assign them to your expeditionary task groups that way they are all ready integrated into an escort element and you would not have to worry about an additional comand element. Why deploy a Task Group in times when you do not need to? Thats a major waste of personnel and resources especially since you already have a TG already conducting training and home defence. As well if the MCDVs has all their dedicated mine warfare payloads and not a couple of each they would be far more useful. As well the OPVs that the government considering now will greatly enhance your ability to patrol our waters without the great expense a frigate incurs for ssovereignty patrols.




> Each ExpeditionaryTask Group:   (all frigates would be based on the Halifax City-Class hull)
> 1 x Air Defence & Command Frigate (with Dutch command and air defence suite, see www.naval-technology.com)
> 3 x Patrol Frigates (Current Halifax Class with mid-life upgrade that is planned)
> 1 x Support Vessels (based on City-Class hull **see www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-modprop.com)


Destroyers are the way to go for command purposes. They have the space and the capability much better then a frigate.
A support vessel based on the Halifax class frigate   has already been discussed here on why it would be a poor idea. Especially the single hull limitation for one.
The lack of submarines is also evident, you will also find here in this forum why submarines are so need for modern day naval warfare.



> Each fleet would be supported by a Maritime Air Wing:
> 1 Maritime Patrol Squadron with 9 CU-163 Altair Maritime Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
> 1 Maritime Helicopter Squadron with three Detachments each of 5 CH-148 Cyclones supporting each Expeditionary Task Group (1 per ship).


You should add the CP140 as well since they are part of the MAG (MAritime Air Group)



> Sell off or scrap the four Tribal-Class destroyers, the three Protector-Class AOR vessels, and the four Victoria-Class submarines to help pay for the new ships that are required.


Replace the destroyers with destroyers, get the JSS and increase the total to 5 vice 3 and work on getting the SSKs working because as Inch, I and a few others have tried to get through to some people we need submarines in order to be an effective navy.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2004)

Just a quick point:

MAG, FG, TAG, ATG were all disbanded when the CAS moved to Ottawa and 1 CAD in winnipeg assumed operational control over the air force.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Nov 2004)

Oh I know but you know how the old titles stick around.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2004)

Thats what i figured, but it was more for the benefit of the uninitiated than for yours ex-d, i was sure you knew that.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Nov 2004)

I am glad you did though aes, that way we can give as accurate info as possible.


----------



## Inch (27 Nov 2004)

aesop, didn't you get that email, right from the CAD Comd?   1 Canadian Air Division is no longer shortened to 1 CAD, it's supposed to shortened to 1 Cdn Air Div.   I have a feeling that people will be calling it 1 CAD for years to come, though for official docs it has to be the new way.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2004)

yeah..i saw it.........new comd, new name, never fails........i wonder if he is also gonna change CANAR HQ to a new name too ??


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2004)

Did you guys notice how it's

maritime AIR group (MAG)
AIR transport group (ATG)
tactical AIR group (TAG)

now why is it that the fighter boys had to be called only fighter group ?????  (lol) where was the "AIR" ???


----------



## Inch (27 Nov 2004)

Yeah, actually I've heard them called that, not sure if it was because of fighter air group though.   ;D


----------



## Mountie (28 Nov 2004)

Inch,

I fully admit I have no experience.  Just a very interested outsider.  I'm just throwing around some ideas for discussion.  I'm not trying to say they will work. 

With regards to the readiness: I wasn't suggesting they be at a high-state of readiness 12 out of 18 months.  I was using the British Army Operational Readiness Cycle that has their six armoured/mechanized brigade on 1 year training for deployment/ready to respond to a crisis, followed by 1 year deployed on operation (not the whole task group every time, maybe half for six months then relieved by the other half of the TG), and a year to rebuild.  I just applied this to six task groups rather than brigade groups.  Again, not saying it would work.

With regards to the air detachments, perhaps I used the wrong terminology.  Maybe I should have said three flights of 5 detachments.  I meant 1 helo per ship.  With a smaller AOR I only assigned 1 helo to it.  Perhaps the frigate-based AOR wouldn't work, just throwing it out there.  Also the CF is experimenting with Maritime UAVs, so I threw that in there for discussion as well.  How often does the CF go sub hunting these days?  Wouldn't exchanging the Aurora for much cheaper to operate MUAVs be a worth while exchange to have the funds to spend in more important areas?  Plus the Cyclone would still be able to fire torpedoes and do SAR.  And I agree you would need more Cyclones then I listed.  I only listed the operational ones, you would need more for training.


Ex-Dragoon,

I didn't put the sealift in with the Expeditionary Task Groups because they wouldn't deploy on the same operations.  They would deploy only to transport army forces.  The ETGs would deploy on naval missions.  For example, with a larger navy maybe a whote ETG of four ships would deploy with a US Carrier Battle Group or to the Standing Fleet Atlantic instead of just one ship.  Why would they need sealift?  The sealift could be attached whenever needed.  The sealift may even be operated by the Naval Reserve or civilians like the US does.  As far as replacing the destroyers with destroyers, I don't know much about space on the frigates.  I just read about multi-mission frigates from Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands, Germany, Singapore, Greece and Spain, and thought maybe Canada could do the same thing.  Plus, I have read that DND is already considering CADRE replacement with an extended hull Halifax-Class frigate.  The JSS is also thought to be too big.  Combining the two very different roles into one ship won't work.  What happens when a Task Group is deployed, like it did right after 9/11 but then the Army needs to get a battle group someone, like it also did right after 9/11.  Does the JSS stay with the Task Group to provide AOR support or return to Canada to pick up the Army to take them where they need to go.  Or does another JSS already in Canada get tasked with the Army move, perhaps only weeks having just returned from a lengthy deployment themselves.  

There is interesting reading on both the CADRE frigate and the AOR frigate concepts at www. sfu.ca/casr/101-0navy.htm


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Nov 2004)

> I fully admit I have no experience.   Just a very interested outsider.   I'm just throwing around some ideas for discussion.   I'm not trying to say they will work


Being interested is great and we do appreciate the interest you share but when someone who does the job tell you why something is so and you come across with implication we are wrong then we start to get annoyed.



> Ex-Dragoon,
> 
> I didn't put the sealift in with the Expeditionary Task Groups because they wouldn't deploy on the same operations.   They would deploy only to transport army forces.   The ETGs would deploy on naval missions.   For example, with a larger navy maybe a whote ETG of four ships would deploy with a US Carrier Battle Group or to the Standing Fleet Atlantic instead of just one ship.   Why would they need sealift?   The sealift could be attached whenever needed.   The sealift may even be operated by the Naval Reserve or civilians like the US does.   As far as replacing the destroyers with destroyers, I don't know much about space on the frigates.   I just read about multi-mission frigates from Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands, Germany, Singapore, Greece and Spain, and thought maybe Canada could do the same thing.   Plus, I have read that DND is already considering CADRE replacement with an extended hull Halifax-Class frigate.   The JSS is also thought to be too big.   Combining the two very different roles into one ship won't work.   What happens when a Task Group is deployed, like it did right after 9/11 but then the Army needs to get a battle group someone, like it also did right after 9/11.   Does the JSS stay with the Task Group to provide AOR support or return to Canada to pick up the Army to take them where they need to go.   Or does another JSS already in Canada get tasked with the Army move, perhaps only weeks having just returned from a lengthy deployment themselves.
> 
> There is interesting reading on both the CADRE frigate and the AOR frigate concepts at www. sfu.ca/casr/101-0navy.htm



Ok first of all we are a small navy so we must do multirole as much as possible. The JSS with combination of an AOR/sea lift vessel placed with a Task Group not only enables us to get from point A to Point B with our own rescources (the AOR side of the JSS) it also allows us to have the sea lift capability. We won't be deploying an army group on a continous basis so the JSS concept is more economical for us then having our own seperate amphib/sealift force. 5 would have been ideal and in previous posts about the JSS you will see this has also been discussed. As for the JSS being too big, of course it will be bigger then most present AORs because it also has to carry troops and their vehicles. Makes sense to me. Besides the navy does not think its going to be too big. This ship type is going to be of tremendous utility for our navy.

As has been discussed here before frigates do not have the room for flag staff. A new destroyer class would be ideal because we can incorporate what we learned from the CPF and other nations ship building experience an incorporate it into a new AAD/Command ship. Forget CADRE its not going to happen, they wanted too much then what the design could give and they moved on to the Common Surface Combatant which will replace both the CPF and the 280s late in the next decade. Using a CPF hull with a plug for flagship/AAD would only be a stop gap measure and we would be having the same problems as the TRUMPED 280s had. Had we bought new ships back then we would not be scrambling to find a replacement for the 280s.


----------



## Inch (28 Nov 2004)

Mountie said:
			
		

> Inch,
> 
> With regards to the air detachments, perhaps I used the wrong terminology.   Maybe I should have said three flights of 5 detachments.   I meant 1 helo per ship.   With a smaller AOR I only assigned 1 helo to it.   Perhaps the frigate-based AOR wouldn't work, just throwing it out there.   Also the CF is experimenting with Maritime UAVs, so I threw that in there for discussion as well.   How often does the CF go sub hunting these days?   Wouldn't exchanging the Aurora for much cheaper to operate MUAVs be a worth while exchange to have the funds to spend in more important areas?   Plus the Cyclone would still be able to fire torpedoes and do SAR.   And I agree you would need more Cyclones then I listed.   I only listed the operational ones, you would need more for training.



I'm arguing semantics here, but we don't have flights in an MH Sqn, at least not at 423.   We're broken down into Dets and that's it. Each Det usually has a Maj for a Det comd, and for all intensive purposes, a det operates like a flight. It just gives us more flexability instead of having us divided into flights and then into Dets.   Truth be told, we don't have a Det for every ship either, we rotate through the high readiness ships.   I've heard of some MH guys being at sea for 300+ days per year.

As for the UAV, while it would compliment the Aurora, I don't think it can do the job alone. The Cyclone, or any helicopter for that matter, just doesn't have the endurance or range that an Aurora has.   Auroras can stay on station for 10+ hrs searching, while also carrying hundreds of sonobuoys compared to the 6 that we can carry. Sure we may not need them to prosecute a sub, but they sure do help in a big way by setting up a sono net to find the sneaky little bugger. Also, helos don't tend to search, for the reason I stated above, that's why we have fixed wing SAR in the form of Buffs and Hercs, backed up by the Auroras. They're the ones that search since they can stay on station longer and search more ground faster than we can. Once they're located, the helo is sent to pick them up.

As for how often we search for subs, more often than you think. There are tons of bad people with subs and why limit yourself in your capability to find them? The whereabouts of a potentially hostile sub is a nightmare to a naval fleet, if there's one out there, we're looking for it. Even if it's not acting hostile, we want to know where it is. The Auroras make this way easier given their range and time on station, we have to lose a contact every 2.5 hrs to go get fueled up, an Aurora doesn't have that problem. 

Cheers


----------

