# Senate Committe hears proposal for Joint Task Force



## bossi (4 May 2004)

* General seeks ‘Canadian Joint Task Force‘ with aircraft carrier *

 [QUOTE ] One of Canada‘s best-known generals says it is time we got back into the aircraft carrier business, calling on Ottawa to acquire a "mini-carrier" that can carry Canadian troops to almost any trouble spot on the globe and put them ashore with naval and air support. 

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie told a Senate committee yesterday that only a carrier will provide Canada with the diplomatic and military clout it had when the navy sent HMCS Magnificent, with hundreds of army vehicles on board, to help resolve the Suez Crisis in the 1950s. 

Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie told the Senate committee on national defence the Canadian Forces should establish three "rapid reaction forces" built around large amphibious assault ships or mini-aircraft carriers in what he called "a Canadian Joint Task Force." 

"We should have a commando force, an elite joint force that is uniquely Canadian -- red and white all over," he said. "That could plug into a joint coalition with air, sea and land capabilities." 

Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie proposed that Ottawa should buy or lease a U.S.-built San Antonio-class mini-carrier or even a much larger Wasp-class carrier to become the core of his expeditionary force. 

"That would be the pointy end of the spear, to give the military some relevance and the government some more options ... to gain some international influence -- geopolitical brownie points, if you will." 

While generals and military experts have called for a "respite" of two years or more to allow our overstretched military to rebuild, Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said it is unrealistic to expect the government to keep the army, navy and air force at home for so long. 

A Canadian task force built around a U.S.-built troop and aircraft carrier would win points in Washington, he said. "That would be a big geopolitical victory for the Americans to link us into that." 

Canada‘s last aircraft carrier, HMCS Bonaventure, was sold for scrap in 1970, and with it went our ability to have a significant impact on international crises, said Dr. Richard Gimblett, a professor at Dalhousie University and a former naval officer. 

"If the government is serious about increasing Canada‘s influence in the world and having the capability to be a major player on the world stage, then you need something like this," he said. "This sort of ship would be very handy." 

"We‘ve been ‘penny packeting‘ our troops overseas -- sending a company here or a hundred troops there, just to show the Canadian flag in places like Haiti. To really have an influence, you need a battlegroup [about 1,000 soldiers]." 

A Canadian aircraft carrier, either a light carrier like the U.S. Navy‘s Wasp class or an "amphibious assault" ship like the San Antonio class, would fit seamlessly into U.S. or British coalition operations. 

"We show up at all the same places they do.... Now we‘ll be arriving fully equipped and ready to operate," Dr. Gimblett said. 

While the bill for either class of ship proposed by Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie is high -- more than $1.5-billion for a Wasp-class carrier and up to $800-million for the San Antonio-class -- the ships would be expected to last up to 50 years, with periodic refits to modernize them. 

"It‘s a whack of money," Dr. Gimblett said, "but it gives the government a capability to really influence a situation in a hot spot, rather than just show the flag." 

And Dr. Gimblett said the carriers would save the Canadian Forces millions in the long term by saving the cost of transporting troops and equipment by civilian ships or aircraft. 

The cash-strapped military would, however, need time to build up its numbers and expertise to fully man a Canadian carrier task force. "You don‘t snap your fingers and suddenly you have it," Dr. Gimblett said. "The Canadian Forces would have to train and equip themselves up to this.... Realistically, it will take a decade." 

The Department of National Defence has announced a $2.1-billion plan to build three new joint support ships for the navy, which would have some transport and troop-carrying capacity. 

But Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said the new ships can only carry a relatively small number of troops and will be another 11 years in the making. "They‘re a good idea and they‘re certainly needed," he said. "But we‘ve got to be able to do something in less than 11 years." 

The carriers he is proposing the navy acquire could accommodate 800 to 2,000 soldiers. 
 [/QUOTE]
- 30 -

Chris Wattie - National Post, 04 May 2004


----------



## stukirkpatrick (4 May 2004)

Interesting idea, but have we ever bought an American ship before?  Its not like we don‘t already use/share their designs *cough*C7&LAV*cough*.


----------



## kurokaze (4 May 2004)

Umm.. are they still making these Wasp Class carriers?  the only references I found to them were from 1942!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 May 2004)

He is referring to the Wasp Class LHD...


----------



## kurokaze (4 May 2004)

oh, thanks.

Not a bad idea, but where are we going to find the sailors?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 May 2004)

Exactly.....


----------



## gate_guard (4 May 2004)

> The cash-strapped military would, however, need time to build up its numbers and expertise to fully man a Canadian carrier task force. "You don‘t snap your fingers and suddenly you have it," Dr. Gimblett said. "The Canadian Forces would have to train and equip themselves up to this.... Realistically, it will take a decade."


Am I the only one who read this part? Of course we‘ll need more sailors, troops, etc. That isn‘t the point. The point is that this is a feasable plan for the future of the CF. A plan that doesn‘t involve  magically obtaining a trillion dollars in defence spending so we can "compete" with the U.S.


----------



## scm77 (4 May 2004)

> "We should have a commando force, an elite joint force that is uniquely Canadian -- red and white all over," he said. "That could plug into a joint coalition with air, sea and land capabilities."


Can anybody explain this better?  Are we talking Canadian Marine Commandos?  Because if we are I will wet my pants.    

Here‘s a link to info for the LHD-1 Wasp
 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhd-1.htm


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 May 2004)

I read it as well gate_guard but carriers have been discussed before so I so no reason to bring it up again.
 Whats ironic is no retired or serving admiral (in fact no senior naval officers at all) have come onboard supporting Lewis‘ vision. That speaks volumes to me and any other sailor.


----------



## quebecrunner (4 May 2004)

I‘d like to have that kind of ships around... But it seems obvious to me that we need more ground troops before... that will allow the guys to take breaks.


----------



## ArmyBrat (4 May 2004)

Sorry if I‘m overlapping ideas, but isn‘t that what the JSS project is all about?

It was my understanding that the JSS project was to set up 2 readily available task groups, which would carry rapid reaction tasked troops, and their equipment, anywhere in the world - and would have the option of helo support.

Seems to me, even if it will be a few years, the JSS project would do us just fine.  The question of sailors is going to be an issue nonetheless, but much less of an issue with the JSS project than if we were to aquire a WASP-LHD.  

On a similar issue, does anybody know what the plans are to equip the JSS project with helicopters, or will they just assign some of the new maritime helicopters to the ships when needed?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2004)

I think if you check the specs on the new Joint Support Ship it looks astonishingly similar the spec for the San Antonio LPD-17

A couple of quotes from the DND Backgrounder:

The notional dimensions of the ship will be in the order of 200 metres in length, 26 metres in breadth and a displacement of 28,000 metric tonnes.

1,500 lane metres of covered deck space for vehicles and capacity equivalent to 1,000 lane metres for weather deck stowage of sea containers. This area is roughly equivalent to that required to carry 300 wheeled light support trucks. This will serve to reduce the reliance on chartered sealift when speed or reaction is a key element of a mission.

 http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1346 

Vice the specification for the LPD-17 from Global Security.

 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17-specs.htm 

25-28,000 tonne displacement, 208 m length overall, 31.9 m beam at the water line.

Kind of look like the same ship to me.

Three of these ships will transport the gear for two light inf battle groups and an small Light Armoured Regiment with service support and about 600 troops amongst them.

The San Antonios carry about 700 troops plus a lot of other gear.  

It seems to me that if they built the three hulls they are talking about configured as planned, they could then build a fourth identical hull with the decks and bulkheads reconfigured internally and Gen. MacKenzie would be a long way towards achieving his goal.

For comparison, here are the specs for the LHD-1 Wasp.  A 40,000 tonne carrier dedicated to troops (up to 1900) and vertical air.

 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhd-1-specs.htm 

The dream might not be totally impossible.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 May 2004)

Ummmm you do realize the main role for these the JSS is still fleet replenishment the sealift tasking is still secondary. With the Wasp and San Antonio classes, these ships are purpose built amphibious warfare platforms, the JSS isn‘t.


----------



## willy (4 May 2004)

I took a look at the specs for the "Wasp" class ships.  It seems to me (but I‘m ignorant of such things) as though it would not accomodate any fixed wing AC that we currently have.  So unless it was going to be a helicopter carrier only, which I don‘t think was really Lou‘s intent in suggesting it, we‘d need to buy a bunch of new aircraft to go with it, no?  I don‘t see that happening.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 May 2004)

There will be a V/STOL version of the JSF if we get them.


----------



## willy (4 May 2004)

Do you have any idea of what the timeframe for possible purchase of such AC would be?


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (4 May 2004)

I‘ll believe it when I see it to be honest!

We used to have a quick reaction force, at a time the best in the world, but then they disbanded the Canadian Airborne Regiment! Really smart!  

Now apparently need more of a quick reaction force then JTF and there isn‘t one around, it will cost allot to recreate such a combat force as the CAR, not to mention to invest into this whole amphibious assault thing too!

I don‘t mean to sound negative or nothing, but it doesn‘t seem feasible, all of a sudden the government WANTS TO SPEND MONEY on the military?    
That should have been done long long ago after Trudeau‘s unification and "restructure" 
(more like demolition) of the military.


----------



## sgt_mandal (4 May 2004)

> Originally posted by sgt_mandal:
> [qb] If you don‘t understand my rationalle, I will understand:
> 
> Do these new vessles seem like a giant diamond ring on a homless mans hand? [/qb]


WOW! This is a positive step within the CF. The homeless man is finally shopping for some new clothes and a shower to go with them! With the other 3 ships in the process, he might not even be a hobo in a decade or 2, (if he isn‘t dead by then)


----------



## sgt_mandal (4 May 2004)

I‘m not trying to sound sarcastic, I just think this is a step in the right direction. 
The quote attatched to my last post was from a different thread but pertaining to somewhat the same topic; New ships for Canada‘s Navy.


----------



## casing (4 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
> [qb] There will be a V/STOL version of the JSF if we get them. [/qb]


Aren‘t the Hornets supposed to be undergoing modernization that will give them another 15 to 20 years of service?  If that is actually the case, then I don‘t see an acquisition of JSF anytime soon.


----------



## IceHawk (4 May 2004)

Not to bud into things here too much but isn‘t there a big ol destroyer in BC with no crew because we don‘t have the manpower?  If we can‘t even man an existing destroyer how could we possibly expect to acquire a new naval capability not to mention the fact that we don‘t currently own any aircraft to put on such a vessel other than the Sea Things and those aren‘t exactly the troop transports or anything else you‘d find on a small carrier....just a thought..


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2004)

Ex-Dragoon
As I understand it you‘re right they are primarily replacements for the AOR replenishment at sea role. However with something like 5 x the vehicle area of the San Antonios and more deck cargo space but still having a well-deck big enough for LCACs it sure looks like they could leave some oil ashore and fulfil the transport role.  They wouldn‘t be assault ships like the Brits new Albion, they would be more like transport ships the Brits are using as auxiliaries.  The Dutch and the Spanish are using similar vessels.  They seem to be being supplied with Mexeflottes and LCMs/LCUs.  Semi-Tactical if you like.  Apologies to those of you that don‘t like that word.

As to air I think the CASR site refers to 4 CH149/SeaKing types in the hangar, similar to the existing AORs.  

The JSF was supposed to be available by 2010-2012 but it will probably slip.  The Aussies are wingeing about the price going up, the Norwegians are thinking about buying the Swedish Grippen instead, the Americans are complaining that the vertical model weighs too much and can‘t carry the war load it is supposed to.

However, on the encouraging side, Lockheed says they can fix the weight, the US Marines still want it, the British RAF/RN MUST have them for their new expeditionary capability and even the USAF is seriously looking at the VSTOL version because of their experience trying to support troops in Afghanistan........ and that is a real "sea-change".  The USAF has been wedded to runways for ever, the longer the better.

So Gen. Lew‘s vision is possible, the only thing missing as always ...........cash-money.

Which brings us to Pte. Nomercy. Believe it when you see it.

Cheers all.


----------



## bossi (4 May 2004)

> Whats ironic is no retired or serving admiral (in fact no senior naval officers at all) have come onboard supporting Lewis‘ vision. That speaks volumes to me and any other sailor.


Yup - it speaks volumes ... (sadly)

Once upon a time imagination was encouraged, not stifled.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 May 2004)

FROM 05 MAY 2004 National Post:

 http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/letters_story.html?id=6f2d9648-cac8-487f-b763-a191972f37cf


----------



## quebecrunner (5 May 2004)

Why not just reforming the canadian airborne regiment?


----------



## gate_guard (5 May 2004)

I still disagree with those that say this plan (or something like it is unfeasable). The main arguments against this plan seem to be:

1) manpower
2) money
3) naval leadership doesn‘t like it

So first off, manpower. This can be overcome, and the numbers needed aren‘t so extreme that it would be impossible to do so.

Money, if we‘re going to spend 2 billion on a few transport/supply ships, why not add a little to the pot and shell out for something a little bigger/better?

Naval leadership doesn‘t like it? Of course not! This would mean that they would have to work with other arms of the CF. What? Use them as just a transport for the army/air force? I didn‘t know that our doctrine/capability as a military was a popularity contest. 

With regards to Mr Haydon‘s article, it‘s laced with backwards thinking, "_The government should pay attention to maintaining those (naval) capabilities rather than wandering off on ill-considered flights of fancy._" So keep the navy strong and ignore the situation of the army/air force? Should we just maintain the status quo without giving thought to a future capability of the CF? I‘m sorry but you can‘t peacekeep or fight wars with just a navy. "You better stop fighting buddy or we‘ll place a navy blockade on your ports..." 

Exdragoon, what would you propose as an alternative concept to the future of the CF?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 May 2004)

You want a wish list?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 May 2004)

The Navy has never had a problem with Joint Ops in fact they are the ones usually pushing for it. I think what capabilities we have left we should enhance those and not worry about something we haven‘t been able to do since WW2.

I did not get that from the article at all, Mr Haydon I think was basicaly rolling his eyes when he wrote this. I think sometimes Mr MacKenzie has read to many of the forums where the kids have posted what we should get.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 May 2004)

I just read a book from the U of C library about the history of the office of CDS and Canadian defence policy from 1961 to 1994.  Very eye opening.

Canadian defence policy has always been predicated on the idea that we won‘t be in overall command of any force we send.  The CDS himself is not supposed to be a force commander.  We can see that this has been true throughout our history, the CEF was under British Army command in WW I (I mean literally, we as a corps were under British 2nd Army), in WW II, although we had an Army commander, we were subordinate to both SHAEF and 21st Army Group.  In Korea our brigade group was under 1 Commonwealth Division.  In Afghanistan our troops are under US command.  etc.

Does General Mackenzie really feel Canada has experienced operational theatre commanders?  Would that not be a prerequisite to fielding self-sufficient joint task forces?

We‘ve never done anything of the sort before, so I‘m not sure where the experience would come from.

Just another thing to think about.  Would be great to do this given enough money, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and about 10 years of low intensity conflicts to get our feet wet in.

When the suggestion was made in 1991 that we field a brigade for the Iraq War, Ottawa didn‘t know whether to **** or go blind.  

I think a more reasonable goal would be to build up the Army to a full division status, and rotate units to theatres as brigades, and leave the pie in the sky aircraft carrier stuff to our allies, who can afford to do it.  Strategic airlift capability would be cheaper and easier to build up, and the Navy already has important functions of its own - sovereignty missions in home waters, and continue to do good work with US carrier battle groups.  Luckily their interoperability allows them to do it.  Since they‘re doing such good work, keep them at it.

A full division with a brigade of airborne qualified battalions could provide the clout that General Lew is talking about, couldn‘t it?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2004)

Mike

In neither the first, nor the second wars did we have commanders, even battalion commanders, with field experience. The learned on the job. It took 3 years of the Calg Highrs teaching battle drill before we could field a formation (one subsequently slaughtered at Dieppe.

Only in Korea could we say we had sound field commanders with Rockingham.

You are right.  It will take about ten years to build up the forces.  It will also take about ten years to secure all the kit.  Even US yards would be hard pressed to supply 3-4 San Antonios/Wasps in the timeframe on top of their existing commitments.

The sea-transportable brigade group with vertical lift I think is quite doable.  An amphibious assault brigade is another matter entirely and I agree with all who suggest we won‘t be getting into the fast-jet fixed wing carrier business.  I don‘t think even Gen MacKenzie is thinking that.  He is probably thinking more on the order of a US MEU which MAY carry half a dozen harriers in place of some Sea Stallion heavy lift helicopters if the mission demands it.

As to Air Lift being cheaper.  Cheaper than a carrier wing and an Amphibious Response Group yes, if we are talking about building a CVN Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  But that is not what the good Gen is talking about.  He is talking about a larger version of what the Dutch, Spanish and Italians are doing already. Neither in capital cost per tonne or cubic meter nor in operating costs would Airlift be cheaper to their solution of essentially 3 JSS and a Flat-Top Cruiser for vertical air support.

In decreasing order of likelihood:

Sea transportable light brigade with overseas garrison forces (battle group size) operating from a National division structure, ------entirely doable.

Air transportable battle group -------possible

Air transportable brigade ------- no hope

Amphibious Assault Brigade complete with National Air Cover ----- likewise

I have to agree with Gate-Guard and the Genl. It is within our reach.

As I understand him he wants to transport our light brigades to a foreign shore and insert troops in a relatively quiet insertion in support of the UN, (Haiti, Somalia, Sierra Leone), not assault the beach and recreate Normandy or Dieppe.....


Darn there I go again     Must be all the Hamilton blood, I continually fight the tendency to Rant.

Have your pipey look that one up.


Cheers.

But it can be done.. Not this year but maybe in 10 years.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 May 2004)

1) Where are we going to get the crew?
2) Where are we going to get the training?
3) What aircraft and vehicles are we going to get for this "mini carrier" of Mr MacKenzies? 
4) By the time its built are we still going to have a viable escort and replenishment force for this "mini-carrier"?
5) Will it be built in Canada or a foreign ship yard?
6) What coast will it be on?
7) How many sea days are we going to give it annually and what contigency plans will be drawn up for it in the event we need to deploy troops during its down time?
8) Will the army and air force be willing to give up a substantial portion of their budgets so this vessel could be built and operated?

Those are the questions you should be asking kirkhill and gate gard. Its a nice to have but unless the naval budget is increased significantly do you still actually think this is doable? Do you guys have any idea how much consumables an LHD would consume in a year and with a crew of over 1100 one of these would tie up a crew of 5 CPFs. Sorry guys the JSS is a good buy but a Wasp is not!


----------



## gate_guard (6 May 2004)

Look, we can get tied up in the details, but the fact remains that nothing worth doing is ever easy. I‘m merely pointing out that the capability of a sea-transportable brigade group could be a direction for the future of the CF. The old adage "Rome wasn‘t built in a day" applies here. I see our current capability as near non-existent. Our military is overstretched and underfunded in all aspects, that‘s a given. You propose that we focus on our current capabilities, but what capabilities do we really have?  If we are to take stances such as the one we took against joining the allies in Iraq, we at least have to be taken seriously. I highly doubt that the allies missed our participation in that one. In my view, we‘ll never be taken seriously with the current state of the CF. I think many would agree that something, some reorganization and focus has to be given in order for the CF to be viable in the future. We can‘t keep playing the U.S.‘s poor, underfunded little brother pretending to be a player in the big leagues. Regarding Mr Dorosh‘s comments, you don‘t get field experience by sitting on the sidelines. All the great field commanders from Guderian to Zhukov busted their cherries at some point. Your point that we don‘t have field commander experience and our doctrine won‘t support a capability is lacking. Commander‘s gain experience, doctrine changes. I‘m not saying this plan would magically happen over night. Initial steps such as funding issues and manpower increases would have to be taken. After which doctrine and SOP‘s for such a plan would take years to implement. 

But so far all I‘ve heard the naysayers rehash is that we don‘t have the money, the manpower, and the will. Exdragoon, would you agree that if manpower, funding, and all the sidebits could be worked out, would this capability be a good direction for the CF to take? If the answer is yes, then this plan should to be considered. If your answer is no, we‘ll never agree and we‘ll leave it at that. I know I‘m being completely idealistic and naive in this. I know we currently don‘t have the funding nor the manpower or logistics for such a capability. But if the CF keeps ignoring possible future directions such as the one mentioned here, 50 years from now we‘ll still be upgrading CF-18s, throwing a coy of infantry here and a battalion there on peacekeeping duty, and having our naval ships augment Allied naval groups. If your happy with the way things are, I‘ve already lost this debate.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2004)

Cheers Gate-Guard

The only thing I would note is your comment about being idealistic and naive.

Its good to be idealistic, especially when your future is ahead of you.

A da-n-sight more rewarding than been old and cynical and getting your jollies from trashing the youngsters while waiting for retirement.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 May 2004)

Gate Guard I would love for the manpower, funding and sidebit issues to be worked out so we could start getting all the big boy toys but I think we need to concentrate on updating the CPFs (they will need major updating to remain effective as they are), actually committing ourselves to replace the 280s (Without an air defence capability having a nice big target like an LHD is only asking for trouble), field the MHP(need I say more on this), recruit more sailors (otherwise your Wasp will be sitting in a harbour someplace with just a duty watch on board) and start construction on the JSS (our current AORs need replacing bad and without a replenishment capability we become a coastal navy). Then and only then can be realistically think of starting on anything as ambitious as an LHD. If the goverment did all those things I would be happy to come on board.
 Kirkhill, I think I have earned the right to be old (well not too old) and cynical after 15 years Reg Force time and 2.5 Reserve time. Playing "lets pretend" or "what if" hold no allure for me and most other CF personnel.


----------



## gate_guard (6 May 2004)

In the words of the old guy in the Kokanee commercials, "Dare to dream, Exdragoon, dare to dream." (West Coasters‘ll probably be the only ones who get that one)


----------



## gate_guard (6 May 2004)

But seriously though, that‘s all I‘m asking. We can‘t let our world reknown ability to "do more with less" stand in the way of actually developing a new and better capability as the CF. Sure, there a million things that need addressing right now, and should be addressed. I‘m talking a long term plan though, if all we are focused on is the next expiration date of one of our pieces of equipment, we will be playing the eternal game of catch up. The reality of a nation‘s military is that nothing new is ever implemented until it‘s found that it‘s needed (ie wait for the next big war, then we‘ll figure out what we need). Why not some pre-emptive planning? If we can all agree that something like a seaborne brigade group would be a viable option in the distant future, why not aim for it now? Short term goals and long term goals.

And for the record, I do share your cynicism, and if something like this were ever to be accomplished, it would be a feat of Herculean proportions. Nonetheless, why not? We can‘t let past screw ups of the CF limit our ability to dream for something better (there goes my idealism again). Otherwise we‘ve bought into their (read NDHQ) ideology of never expecting anything better.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 May 2004)

> Originally posted by gate_guard:
> [qb] In the words of the old guy in the Kokanee commercials, "Dare to dream, Exdragoon, dare to dream." (West Coasters‘ll probably be the only ones who get that one) [/qb]


Dinnnnnnnnnnnng Donnnnnnnnnnnng

(It‘s not just the Left Coast that gets those commercials.    )


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 May 2004)

I see what you are saying Gate Guard and I agree but I think we should priortize what we need first. We could learn valuable lessons from embarking troops and vehicles on the JSS..and then move upwards. These days we have to learn how to crawl before we can even hope in ever running that marathon.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2004)

Ex-Dragoon

You are correct, we do need to fix the issues of spare parts, training ammunition and bodies to fill out the existing units.

And I apologize to you and all the others out there that have BTDT.  You have reasons enough to be cynical. 

But unless we give youngsters the chance to dream you aren‘t going to be getting the company you seek on those long, lonely mid-watches.   

Here‘s a related article from Janes.  More grist for the mill.




> US considers overhaul of amphibious forces
> 
> By Andrew Koch JDW Bureau Chief, Washington, DC
> 
> ...


From Janes Defence Weekly


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2004)

Oh and by the way Ex-Dragoon, and your mates.......

Thank-you


----------



## hugh19 (6 May 2004)

Just my two cents, but a amphib is not a carrier. Two completely different jobs.

Plus the last time the navy asked the army about say naval gunfire support, the army turned it down. The senior navy officers do understand jointness, but the ships need men and new equipment before anything else.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2004)

Australia devises multi-role ship 

IAN BOSTOCK JDW Correspondent
Sydney 

The Australian Department of Defence has revealed a new multi-role ship concept developed to meet a broad range of naval requirements and to enhance the ability of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to deploy and operate throughout the Asia-Pacific region. 

Known as the Multi Role Auxiliary (MRA), the concept was conceived by the Naval Materiel Requirements Branch (NMRB) during 1999 and unveiled last month at the Amphib 2000 amphibious warfare conference. 

It is one of numerous design concepts the ADF is considering that takes into account Australia‘s changing geostrategic environment, advances in military technology and ongoing budget pressures. The MRA was developed as an option for improved amphibious transport and afloat support capabilities. The Royal Australian Navy‘s (RAN‘s) existing landing platform amphibious ships, heavy lift ship, under way replenishment ships and major support vessels are due to be retired within the next 15 years. 

The MRA, along with other options such as life-of-type extensions for existing RAN ships, purchase of commercial off-the-shelf single and multi-role vessels and leasing arrangements, will be considered following the release of the Defence White Paper later this year. 

At 22,000 tonnes displacement, the MRA would have a range of 6,500nm (12,044km) at 18kts and a maximum cruising speed of 22kts. Design engineers estimate the MRA would cost no more than a large frigate. 

Designed in the context of a "whole of life, whole of capability approach to capability development", the MRA is expected to achieve significant cost savings in acquisition and through-life costs by combining the various sea lift, amphibious and afloat support roles in one ship type. The MRA would be capable of operating as an under way replenishment ship; transport ship for an army battalion group of around 1,200 troops and equipment; aviation support ship; logistic support vessel; or a combination of these roles. 

Resembling a flat-top amphibious assault ship, the MRA features a 224m full length flight deck with landing spots for six helicopters the size of an S-70A-9 Black Hawk. The RAN believes the MRA‘s considerable helicopter support capabilities reflect the growing trend towards over-the-horizon amphibious operations. 

The MRA design acknowledges the importance of flexibility and rapid response and the increasing emphasis being placed by the ADF on the ability to project and sustain forces in the littoral environment prevalent within Australia‘s wider region of interest. 

The MRA incorporates two elevators capable of accommodating aircraft up to the size of the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor. Two 70-tonne capacity cranes are positioned either end of the island to enable loading of amphibious landing craft. Work is continuing on the feasibility of a stern docking well to provide access for various size landing craft to load and unload. 



A computer-generated image of the MRA developed as a result of an engineering concept study by the NMRB to provide a flexible and enhanced amphibious/afloat support capability for the RAN
(Source: Navy Systems Branch  ­ Computer Modelling Group)  


 http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/jdw/jdw000718_1_n.shtml 

An aussie solution --- Kind of a mini-Wasp, with a Well-Deck for the price of a CPF

Their estimate, not mine.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2004)

Oh and by the way, the Brits might be willing to lease/sell us one or two of their Invicible class light carriers.

There are rumours that they are going to mothball up to two of them so they can save up their pennies and by two new 50,000 tonne carriers by 2015 or so.

One or two of those ships, along with the 3 JSS could allow MacKenzie to do what he is proposing in the short term.


----------



## hugh19 (7 May 2004)

Are you brain dead or just don‘t like to read?? We don‘t have the man power to man our current ships much less a Invincible class carrier. It takes up to two years just to get some Tech trades QL3 qualified for gods sake. Pay attention to what ex dragoon was saying.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2004)

Sledge

Not brain dead, or at least not most of the time.

You are dead right.  We don‘t have the manpower.  We don‘t have the parts.  We don‘t have the fuel, food, money, training, experience.....

The issue under debate here is whether or not we should get them.

If we should get them it is only because the canadian public and our politicians see value in them and see them as both a worthwhile and attainable goal.

Gen. MacKenzie is arguing that such a goal would be worthwhile.  I think Gate-Guard, amongst others is agreeing with him. I certainly do.

Your position seems to be that regardless of whether or not it is worthwhile, it is not attainable. That may indeed be true.

But if it is true then you are making it easier for those who want to cut the forces further by allowing them to argue that the forces can‘t do anything meaningful and NEVER WILL so why waste money on them.

I believe that change has to happen.  I believe that the folks in the CF can change the CF and adapt to changes in the Defence policy.

I also know that between 1939 and 1944 the Canadian Navy radically increased in size, learned how to train farmboys to fire boilers at sea (my father-in-law), learned how to command large formations of ships and how to crew aircraft carriers.

The only difference of significance between then and now was political commitment and money.

I don‘t sell you and your shipmates short. 

The problem is with the politicians.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (7 May 2004)

if we had the manpower, yes i think we should go in this direction, but manpower and current equipment should be the priority right now.


----------



## hugh19 (7 May 2004)

Um lets see the technology on ships is NOT reciprocating steam engines any more, the technology of the day was very crude and it took far less time to train personnel. Do you have any idea how many people died while the navy got its s*** together????? That rapid expansion was impressive but not possible today. So they answer is no we can‘t and should not get them. In ten years once the problems we face now are solved or not then possibly. But in ten years the 280‘s will be gone with or without replacement, and the frigates will be obsolete and in need of serious upgrades and or replacment. ( the frigates were designed for a 20 year life span)

 So what your saying is scrap the fleet for a amphib ship. Unless the money is forth coming it is unattainable.

 Plus there is going to be a huge outflux of people soon as people get out. Its the start of where all those 20/40 plan contracts end. Many peopl are going for pension so they need to be replaced. The training system is clogged now, noone is around to train people. So when myself and ex talk listen.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2004)

> Um lets see the technology on ships is NOT reciprocating steam engines any more, the technology of the day was very crude and it took far less time to train personnel.


And my father-in-law, who had a grade 8 or 10 education from a prairie town of less than 500, and whose exposure to technology was splicing leather traces on their family cart-horses didn‘t have to make a leap to become a Chief Engine Room Artificer??

In fact I agree the technology was simpler and that training will be harder and might have to take longer. 



> Do you have any idea how many people died while the navy got its s*** together?????


Yes I do. I don‘t want to see us have to go through that again.



> That rapid expansion was impressive but not possible today.


You may be right, you probably are. Also unnecessary (not you, the rapid expansion). I am not arguing that we HAVE to expand that fast, nor even that it is desireable, just that it is possible.  And if that is possible then a longer term, better planned, better executed expansion is also possible.




> So they answer is no we can‘t and should not get them.


We disagree.




> In ten years once the problems we face now are solved or not then possibly.


We agree.  




> But in ten years the 280‘s will be gone with or without replacement, and the frigates will be obsolete and in need of serious upgrades and or replacment. ( the frigates were designed for a 20 year life span)


We absolutely agree.



> So what your saying is scrap the fleet for a amphib ship.


Absolutely not!!!!!!



> Plus there is going to be a huge outflux of people soon as people get out. Its the start of where all those 20/40 plan contracts end. Many peopl are going for pension so they need to be replaced. The training system is clogged now, noone is around to train people.


Are some of these people that could be retained but are just fed-up with the over-tasking and are getting out? Or is it that we haven‘t attracted the replacements? Or is it that we haven‘t recruited the replacements? From your last comment it doesn‘t sound like recruiting is a problem.



> Unless the money is forth coming it is unattainable.


Absolutely agree.  That is what the discussion is about, setting a goal, a planning horizon and getting the funding to do the job properly.  The question is what jobs are we, as a nation, capable of.  Not what the CF, nor even the Navy, is capable of with the resources at hand.



> So when myself and ex talk listen


I always do. And I hope that others are as well.

I am just happy to have the opportunity to talk to folks like yourselves that help me to understand the problems you are facing.  


Cheers Sledge,


----------



## Danjanou (7 May 2004)

I don‘t think anyone is comparing picking up a couple  of new ships to expanding a navy of 11 ships to one of over 400 in 6 years and incidentally fighting a major war during that period.

No matter what type of ship we ultimately choose and how many it will take a few years for them to come into service. They just aren‘t going to appear in Bedford Basin overnight you realise. 

How long that time lag is will depend of course on the type(s)/numbers we choose and if they‘re o foreigh ready to go design or something we design here. Also the political push behind the project or lack of it is important (Sea King replacements anyone?)

Duringt that period there should be sufficient time to recruit and train sufficient pers to man them. 

PersoanllY I‘d like to see a blue water navy with 4-8 DDHs with air defence and C&C capabilities (replacements for the Tribals) 12-16 CPF (or eventual replacemnts), 4 subs, 12-20 MCMV/costal patrol vessels (real ones),4 new purpose built replenishment ships and 2 light assualt ships/carriers capable of transporting and supporting  a small 600-800 man battlegroup, but it ain‘t gonna happen.

It all comes down to political will or as it is today lack of same.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 May 2004)

Hey Dan....would love to have you as a defence minister.


----------



## Danjanou (7 May 2004)

Yeah that‘s nothing. You should see my plans for 3 Div (1 Regular 2 Reserve) Army with SP Arty,  real tanks, and maybe even paratroopers.


----------



## Korus (7 May 2004)

Stop teasing us!


----------

