# Hmmm, it appears I'm not alone re: small carriers....



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Oct 2004)

Link in Spanish: *http://www.revistanaval.com/noticias.php?ID=2-2004-10-09-AUSTRALIA*

Article graciously translated by Tank-Net.org Member Swerve:

"IZAR has signed a contract with the Australian Navy for development of a strategic projection ship. The first phase, a feasibility study, is for $2 million.

(bit of puff for IZAR) 

The requirements of the Australian Navy match about 95% the strategic projection ship contracted for the Spanish Navy. IZAR has only one competitor in this race, the French DCN. 

The first phase of the project, the viability study, will take 6 months. When this phase concludes, if the viability study results in selection, it will proceed to the negotiation of new contracts for the two other phases contemplated: the functional project and the project of design and construction. Those contracts, (bugger - my dictionary's downstairs . . er .. ) will require an important transfer of technology, including technical assistance during construction. 

(bit about IZARS technical capability)

The strategic projection ship is a hybrid between an aircraft carrier and an amphibious ship, & (that word "supone" again - I should look it up. Go with the context ..) combines an amphibious platform with an important embarked air arm. Its capacity for helicopters permits its utilisation in rescue missions and aid in case of natural disasters.

(reassurance that the margins on this job are positive, & it won't compromise IZARs financial situation)"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bottom Line:  I've argued that this capability is essential for Canada to have any sort of projection capability specifically as it relates to adequately supporting deployed ground forces.  If Spain and now Australia are looking to that model, why shouldn't Canada as well?

Discuss....



Matthew.  ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Oct 2004)

> Bottom Line:  I've argued that this capability is essential for Canada to have any sort of projection capability specifically as it relates to adequately supporting deployed ground forces.  If Spain and now Australia are looking to that model, why shouldn't Canada as well?



What of area air defence? What of re-supply for these carriers and their escorts? What of upgrading the CPFs so they do remain viable? Where are you getting the manpower for these carriers? Training for the crews and airgroups? Selection for the type of aircraft for the air groups? Etc Etc Etc

I know this topic has been discussed time and time again and each time it has been indicated to you why carriers are not feasible for the military.


----------



## Jungle (15 Oct 2004)

Then how is it feasible for the Aussies, who have a Military similar to ours ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Oct 2004)

I'm not worried about what other countries get their armed forces, I am more concerned with the CF maintaining what capabilities we have an improving where we can.


----------



## Jungle (15 Oct 2004)

But you realize we can learn from others, right ? Maybe they have ways of dealing with problems that we didn't see. I don't think we should just close the door and say "we can't do it". This is certainly not the attitude I was trained with.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Oct 2004)

Hey if we could do that great but how about addressing the basics before we get the gucci kit(carriers) for the navy as I pointed out above.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2004)

In fairness to ExDragoon the Aussies plan also calls for 3 Theatre-High Altitude Area Air Defence Destroyers (think seabased NMD), upgraded oilers and the carriers themselves are supposed to carry supplies to support accompanying vessels.   As to manpower --- their hiring them.   As to aircraft they are buying them   - Tiger AHs, up to 60 NH 90s and some CH 47s.

One issue though that remains to be discussed is in what environment the vessels are to be deployed.   The Aussies, Spanish, Dutch and most other countries, including arguably the Brits, are assuming a permissive environment.   Either the enemy has no effective air force or long range missile threat (true of most peace support operations) or else the Americans will supply air superiority and provide a permissive environment.

If that is the case then we don't need a full battle group.

All we really need to do what the Aussies are doing.....a plan, commitment and money.......


----------



## Jungle (15 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> All we really need to do what the Aussies are doing.....a plan, commitment and money.......


My point exactly...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Oct 2004)

> The Aussies, Spanish, Dutch and most other countries, including arguably the Brits, are assuming a permissive environment.  Either the enemy has no effective air force or long range missile threat (true of most peace support operations) or else the Americans will supply air superiority and provide a permissive environment.



The navies in question also have credible air defence, ASuW, ASW and replenishment assets.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

I agree with Ex-Dragoon on this; it would be nice to be able to have a ship like that but we have to work on getting a replacement for the destroyers and the mid-life refit of the CPF first.  The three JSS ships that may come our way will have the capability of transporting more equipment then we can now.  It may not be the total package but we are going to have to live with it and adapt to it as the CF as done in the past.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Oct 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What of area air defence? What of re-supply for these carriers and their escorts? What of upgrading the CPFs so they do remain viable? Where are you getting the manpower for these carriers? Training for the crews and airgroups? Selection for the type of aircraft for the air groups? Etc Etc Etc
> 
> I know this topic has been discussed time and time again and each time it has been indicated to you why carriers are not feasible for the military.



My vote would be to plan for it all at once.   

Say: "Here is our objective force including:
(2) LHD's (with E-2C, JSF and CH-148 Cyclones)
(2) JSS (refueling, supply and transport capability with utility version of H-92)
(2) Arleigh Burke-equivalents
(4) Halifax-class Frigates

Operational Target Date: 2010

Capital Costs:   $XX billion
Infrastructure Costs: $X billion
Operational Costs: $X billion/year

For these funds, you will get the following additional capabilities....[and list them]"

My take is right now we can't do much which makes it hard to ask for and get more money.

Offer a new capability that would allow us to take a more proactive role in places like Sudan and I think politicians will get in line to support it.

The one thing I am certain of, is I don't think we can do any worse than we're doing right now so why not try an alternate approach to change things.

That's just me.

Cheers Ex-Dragoon,


Matthew.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Oct 2004)

Just an add-on, this is from the site linked in the article on the British LPD's, and is exactly what NDHQ needs to put on the table.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

*Joint Rapid Reaction Forces* 

The ending of the Cold War has placed new demands on the UK Armed Forces.   Rather than primarily intended to confront the Warsaw Pact in Europe and the North Atlantic, they must now be able to move quickly to wherever they are needed around the world, but still be hard hitting and flexible. 

The need for a new force with these capabilities was originally recognised with the formation of the Joint Rapid Deployment Force in 1996. The 1998 Strategic Defence Review acknowledged the strengths of the Joint Rapid Deployment Force and sought to build on them to produce more capable, better supported joint forces with the strategic transport to make them truly deployable to crisis around the world.

Establishment of JRRF

Setting up the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces has proved to be a major undertaking, it is taking longer than anticipated to put all of the capabilities in place but the MoD continues to regard it as a priority implementation.

Since SDR the Ministry of Defence has begun to create a pool of Joint Rapid Reaction Forces, bringing together all readily available forces from all three Services.   From this pool can hopefully be drawn the right mix of forces to mount short-notice, medium-scale operations of all kinds - from disaster relief to high intensity war-fighting â â€œ under NATO, European, UN coalition or national auspices. Joint Rapid Reaction Forces will be ready to deploy in phases â â€œ or echelons â â€œ supported by a range of enabling capabilities.

Initial Joint Rapid Reaction Force (JRRF) capability was declared on 1 April 1999 and elements of the JRRF pool were deployed effectively soon after as part of the UK's contribution to the NATO operation in Kosovo during June 1999.   The lessons drawn from the Kosovo conflict validated the JRRF concept and re-affirmed the need for the capabilities identified during the Strategic Defence Review.   Although early implementation milestones were met, the establishment of JRRF operational capability by the target date of October 2001 had by early 2000 slipped to late 2002 due to operational commitments (Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, etc.) and overstretch. Since then a number of reasons, including delay in the full implementation of the Army's Formation Readiness Cycle, have led to a further revision to late 2002/03.   By this time delivery of JRRF Phase 2 capability â â€œ the ability to mount and sustain a single, non-enduring, medium scale warfighting operation, in addition to continuing commitments in the Balkans â â€œ should be achieved.   Additional capability will be introduced incrementally as it becomes available. 

In support of the JRRF, during 2000 the Ministry of Defence announced the decision to lease four C-17 aircraft for a period of seven years. Contracts have been signed and the aircraft will come into service during 2001. A PFI contract for the provision of six roll-on roll-off container ships has also been announced, with an in-service date of 2005, though the full service is expected to be available from 2003.   Chartering arrangements for up to four ships as an interim service are now expected to come into force in March 2001 and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's current roll-on roll-off shipping will be kept in service until then.

Enabling Capabilities

Whatever the size of force package deployed, several key 'enabling capabilities' will be required. These include: 

command and control (including a deployable joint task force headquarters), joint communications and information systems, intelligence support, and administrative support; 
joint logistics support, including deployed medical support; and, 
strategic transport - usually provided by MOD-controlled transport assets for first echelon forces, and by a combination of MOD and commercially contracted strategic transport assets for follow-on forces. 

The First Echelon

First echelon forces are available at very high readiness. The most readily available elements of the first echelon will be "Spearhead Forces".   

The pool will include: 
Special Forces; 
an attack submarine, surface warships and a support ship; 
a spearhead task force based on a light infantry battalion or commando group, drawn from 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines, 3(UK) Mechanised Division's "ready brigade" or 16 Air Assault Brigade; and 
a mix of offensive and defensive combat aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, helicopters, short-range air defence units and supporting tactical air transport and air-to-air refuelling aircraft. 

The balance of first echelon forces could be drawn from: 
additional Special Forces; 
shipping to generate a maritime task group centred on an aircraft carrier or helicopter assault ship, and including amphibious shipping if necessary to support the lead Commando task force; 
lead task forces, to provide a broad choice of capabilities, including: 
a lead Commando task force equipped with Lynx anti-tank helicopters (Westland Apache Attack helicopter when in service), support helicopters and all-terrain vehicles; 
a lead airborne task force, based on a parachute battalion; 
a lead aviation/armoured reconnaissance task force, with Lynx anti-tank helicopters (Westland Apache attack helicopter when in service), armoured reconnaissance and infantry sub-units; 
a lead armoured task force with Challenger tanks and Warrior armoured infantry vehicles; and, 
combat support and logistic support groups with artillery, air defence, engineer and other assets; 
a range of high capability air assets, including additional offensive and defensive combat aircraft, helicopters and support aircraft. 

By the beginning of 2001, most elements of this pool of forces are available.

The Second Echelon

The second echelon of forces will be available at high readiness to provide greater hitting power should the first echelon require strengthening, or to conduct subsequent operations. These forces would probably use a combination of MOD and commercially contracted transport assets to get to the crisis. 

The pool would comprise: 
additional maritime forces to form a second or larger, more capable maritime task group, including an amphibious capability if necessary to support 3 Commando Brigade; 
a choice of ground force brigades drawn from: 
3 Commando Brigade, including specialist capabilities for amphibious, mountain and cold weather operations; 
a mechanised "ready brigade" from 3 (UK) Mechanised Division; 
an armoured "ready brigade" from 1 (UK) Armoured Division; and 
tactical air-landed capability; 
substantial additional air assets to enable operations across the full spectrum of airpower roles to provide a robust air contribution to the Joint Task Force. 

The pool of forces available for the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces will vary from time-to-time but its final approximate size and shape will include. 
around 20 major warships (aircraft carriers, attack submarines, amphibious ships, destroyers or frigates); 
about 22 other vessels (mine warfare and support ships); 
four ground force brigades; 
about 110 combat aircraft; 
over 160 other aircraft. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bottom Line:   If you don't know where you're going, you're probably never going to get there.



Matthew.


----------



## DJL (16 Oct 2004)

> Say: "Here is our objective force including:
> (2) LHD's (with E-2C, JSF and CH-148 Cyclones)
> (2) JSS (refueling, supply and transport capability with utility version of H-92)
> (2) Arleigh Burke-equivalents
> (4) Halifax-class Frigates



E-2C? As in Hawkeyes? You understand that Hawkeyes are "Conventional Take Off and Landing" (CTOL) aircraft? Thats quite the LHD you are planning.......... 




> My take is right now we can't do much which makes it hard to ask for and get more money.
> 
> Offer a new capability that would allow us to take a more proactive role in places like Sudan and I think politicians will get in line to support it.



Or have our elected government decide what role it is we as Canadians want to take in the world, base our foregin policy around it, then adjust funding for foregin aid and defence spending so as to be able to meet the said objectives.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

Reference the Hawkeye.  Howabout replacing the Hawkeye with an Unmanned Dirigible cruising at +60,000 feet?  You can reduce the size of your LHD and get rid of those nasty steam catapults and arrester wires.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Reference the Hawkeye.   Howabout replacing the Hawkeye with an Unmanned Dirigible cruising at +60,000 feet?   You can reduce the size of your LHD and get rid of those nasty steam catapults and arrester wires.



I hadn't thought about that alternative.

Thanks Kirkhill.   I like it a lot....



Matthew.


----------



## GGboy (16 Oct 2004)

If the Aussies can do it, why the hell can't we? The ADF is almost exactly the same size as the CF, albeit slightly better funded, but seems to have a huge advantage over us in vision. Towit: they know what they want to do and prepare in the long, medium and short term to do it.
Where the hell is the senior leadership of the CF when we really need them? A group of retired generals/admirals has already formally proposed something like this, a concept called Sea Horse which would include both the JSS and something like the U.S. Navy's San Antonio class of LPDs ... the response from atop the twin towers at 101 Col. By Drive has been a deafening silence.
It's not really a question of money (the US could probably be convinced to lease us an LPD or two on very generous terms), or even of gearing up personnel to man these ships (with enough lead time even the infamous recruiting group should be able to find enough people), or even - heaven forfend! - of getting generals used to the idea of REAL joint ops. I contend it's a question of leadership: it seems to me the CDS and the chiefs of staff are currently sitting around waiting for the government to finish its by now mythical defence review (currently scheduled to be done next summer, if ever) instead of being pro-active and pushing a plan like this with the government. Or if not this, then any plan ... anything's gotta be better than sitting around on our heinies waiting for the 280s to rust into oblivion or the last Herc to go U/S.
 :


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

Agreed GGboy


----------



## DJL (16 Oct 2004)

> If the Aussies can do it, why the heck can't we?



I agree.........but things are not always that simple, look at the different mindset of both peoples. One lives next to a large Islamic state well the other lives next to the worlds only superpower.



> The ADF is almost exactly the same size as the CF, albeit slightly better funded, but seems to have a huge advantage over us in vision. Towit: they know what they want to do and prepare in the long, medium and short term to do it.
> Where the heck is the senior leadership of the CF when we really need them?



Before you start comparing both militarise, you must understand that the ADF has also shared many of the problems the CF has.......look at their Navy, they have had problems with their Collins program, they retired their Charlie Adams destroyers without a concurrent replacement, their ANZAC and Perry frigates are nothing to really toot about, they paid a fortune for the aging ex-American tank landing ships they bought and converted, and they paid a fortune for the handful of rebuilt Seasprites for their ANZAC figs.

WRT calling down the senior leadership of the CF for all the failings of todays Canadian Forces, that is rather short sighted. Some blame can be placed, but IMHO most have done the best that can be expected with the limited resources.



> A group of retired generals/admirals has already formally proposed something like this, a concept called Sea Horse which would include both the JSS and something like the U.S. Navy's San Antonio class of LPDs ... the response from atop the twin towers at 101 Col. By Drive has been a deafening silence.
> It's not really a question of money (the US could probably be convinced to lease us an LPD or two on very generous terms), or even of gearing up personnel to man these ships (with enough lead time even the infamous recruiting group should be able to find enough people), or even - heaven forfend! - of getting generals used to the idea of REAL joint ops.



With a pricetag of close to a billion a pop, and possably a reduction in orders by up to 25%, I'm all but sure the USN would jump on that idea   :



> I contend it's a question of leadership: it seems to me the CDS and the chiefs of staff are currently sitting around waiting for the government to finish its by now mythical defence review (currently scheduled to be done next summer, if ever) instead of* being pro-active and pushing * a plan like this with the government. Or if not this, then any plan ... anything's gotta be better than sitting around on our heinies waiting for the 280s to rust into oblivion or the last Herc to go U/S.



Define "*being pro-active and pushing *".


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

> With a pricetag of close to a billion a pop, and possably a reduction in orders by up to 25%, I'm all but sure the USN would jump on that idea



http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/lpdr.htm
http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/landing_ship_dock_auxillary.htm

You don't need the San Antonios.

4 of the Dutch Rotterdam Landing Ship Dock (Auxilliary) cost the Brits 320 MUKP or about 640 MCAD, 160 MCAD "a pop"
2 Landing Platform Docks cost them 800 MUKP the pair or about 800 MCAD each

1 LPD(Command) and 3 LSD(A)s would cost about 1.4 BCAD, require 629 crew and transport from 1372 to 1772 troops, more than 4000 line-meters of vehicles and at least a dozen helicopters.   If it came out of the JSS budget that would still leave some 700 MCAD for the Navy to build dedicated RAS vessels without having to worry about including Hospitals, Vehicle space, Trailer Space, Troop Space and Land Command space.


----------



## DJL (16 Oct 2004)

> You don't need the San Antonios.
> 
> 4 of the Dutch Rotterdam Landing Ship Dock (Auxilliary) cost the Brits 320 MUKP or about 640 MCAD, 160 MCAD "a pop"
> 2 Landing Platform Docks cost them 800 MUKP the pair or about 800 MCAD each
> ...



That idea sounds more feasible, but you still have to take into account the lifetime operating costs of your four LPDs and the two AORs, compared to three JSS.

Now since you and others floated some ideas (Which I took shots at), it would be proper if I too floated my "ideas". If the JSS project's funds are what we are "playing with", I'd jump onto the American AOE-X program with the aim of purchasing three vessels, then with my remaining funds, purchase or lease (depending on what i have left over) "USNS like" 55K + ton Ro/Ros.

Fire away.  :warstory:


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

would all four of the ships be based on the Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) and one having a command suite on it. I still think having a separate AOR ship is better for example the patino class AOR would fit the bill.

So i would get three ships based on the Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) and three Patino auxiliary oiler and multi-product replenishment ships

You can see the specs for the  Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) at: http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/schelde_enforcer_lpd_13000.htm

You can see the specs for the Patino auxiliary oiler and multi-product replenishment ships at:
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/products.html# click on the picture.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

can i ask what is the American AOE-X program can you tell us more


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2004)

Whew, who handed out all the Admiral's shoulder boards.... 

Baby steps.   Although I put this in the "capability enhancement" category along with air-deployable brigades, etc, etc it is important to temper these proposals (as Ex-Dragoon suggested) with the fact that we are in danger of losing basic Naval Capabilities in the near future (C2, AD, Task Force, Subs?) and that our current government currently seems to want to cut 700 million from the Defence Budget for free daycare.

Lets put our energy in to restructuring what we have.


----------



## DJL (16 Oct 2004)

AOE-X is the program to replace the Sacramento class logistics support ships (Think our Protecteur-class, then double the displacement)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

> Reference the Hawkeye.   Howabout replacing the Hawkeye with an Unmanned Dirigible cruising at +60,000 feet?   You can reduce the size of your LHD and get rid of those nasty steam catapults and arrester wires.



Ummm LHDs, LHAs etc don't have catapults or arrester wires...


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

I think that you and I are in broad agreement canuck 101.   I was just using the UK numbers to illustrate what is possible within the budget available.   Although the LPDs   are bigger than the LSD(A)s (18000 tonnes vs 16000 tonnes - by the way the Rotterdam herself is only 13000 tonnes) I don't see why a common platform couldn't be built with just one being outfitted completely as a Command ship.

Maybe there could even be some commonalities generated between the Patino class and the Rotterdam in terms of machinery.

By the way how much does a Patino RAS cost?

And DJL could you post a link to the AOE-X programme?


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

> Whew, who handed out all the Admiral's shoulder boards....


  I got mine with my Junior General's Kit Infanteer, didn't you? ???


----------



## DJL (16 Oct 2004)

http://peos.crane.navy.mil/futureships/TAOE(X)/TAOE(X).htm


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2004)

> I got mine with my Junior General's Kit Infanteer, didn't you?



Nah, I got mine in my latest edition of _Grossgeneralstab_.   ;D

I'm not trying to knock anyone (hence the wink), and I love to make proposals of my own.   I just feel that this type of proposal would be akin to argueing for the Army to deploy and sustain 2 Divisions to Afghanistan.   Baby steps.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

> Ummm LHDs, LHAs etc don't have catapults or arrester wires...



I'm aware of that Ex-Dragoon.   I was responding to Blackshirt's suggestion that we park a Hawkeye on a vessel.   For everything else he wanted onboard he could get the job done with an LHD or LHA, as I think DJL or Canuck 101 pointed out.   If he wanted a Hawkeye on board then he would have needed catapult and arresters.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

> I'm not trying to knock anyone (hence the wink), and I love to make proposals of my own.  I just feel that this type of proposal would be akin to argueing for the Army to deploy and sustain 2 Divisions to Afghanistan.  Baby steps.



I got it Infanteer.  But as others have pointed out.... no place without a plan.  And with the time it would take to generate all those vessels (Minimum 5 years for the first to hit the water? - 10 years for them all?) I think we would have ample time to take a lot of very tiny steps.

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

You would have to double the size of the flight deck to you could have the length to put in the catapults to launch an E2off your flight deck and if thats the case you might as well get a conventionally powered carrier.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2004)

> But as others have pointed out.... no place without a plan.



A plan is just a basis for change.  I would rather see a series of short term plans (fill out the Navy ratings, get the ships to sea, sustain our current capabilites, etc, etc) then some grandoise Plan Z that will turn us into a Maritime Superpower.  Lets get our sealegs and go from there.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

Agreed Ex-Dragoon.   And I also agree with you that that would be a step too far for us.   Probably many steps too far.

For that reason I suggested to Blackshirt that he rethink using the Hawkeye and trying something different to supply the same Surveillance capability.   I suggested a High Altitude unmanned dirigible as one option.   I am sure there are many others that are much better.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

I guess I don't see 4 transport vessels and a couple of Oilers as the basis of a Maritime Superpower....

Anyway...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

I like the dirigible idea actually. I always been a fan for the naval untilization of them.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I guess I don't see 4 transport vessels and a couple of Oilers as the basis of a Maritime Superpower....
> 
> Anyway...



No but when you add carriers, their air group and additional support and escort ships to the mix you are getting there.


----------



## DJL (16 Oct 2004)

> I guess I don't see 4 transport vessels and a couple of Oilers as the basis of a Maritime Superpower....



Nor do I, with that said, you have to take into a account the logistical requirements for four LPDs and all the said Pongos on board. What are they going to eat, drink, smoke etc.......in effect, with two LPDs, (in terms of manpower) you have created another taskgroup. The Spanish/Dutch design you suggested is close to the same size as our current AORs, hence close in capabilities. With the point being, the Euro designs, our current AORs and most likely the JSS, will be too small to support both a naval taskgroup and the army battlegroup aboard the phibs.

Thats where Baby steps comes in.........purchase monster size AORs to replace our current ones, which will increase the capabilities of our naval task groups (in terms of endurance, support, maintenance etc) and if in the future we do purchase LPDs/LHDs/CVLs, we will be able to absorb the logistical blow brought forth by the said ships.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2004)

Do you want "Monster Size" AOR's?  They seem to be high profile targets for cheap weapons systems that the bad guys are really getting their mitts on (Anti-Shipping Missiles, Cheap Diesel-Electric Subs).  On well placed Silkworm and the whole concept goes down the tube.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Oct 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You would have to double the size of the flight deck to you could have the length to put in the catapults to launch an E2off your flight deck and if thats the case you might as well get a conventionally powered carrier.



That's true enough ... although in theory the C2A and the Hawkeye 2000 could have RATO gear. Landing is the larger problem.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

And landing is much harder then taking off.....you want to risk your E2C that way?


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Oct 2004)

Heck no ... I still prefer the C17 carrying Imperial Star Destroyer.   The reality is we better get our frigate fleet and AAD in order before we put anything else in the water beyond the JSS.


----------



## DJL (16 Oct 2004)

> Do you want "Monster Size" AOR's?   They seem to be high profile targets for cheap weapons systems that the bad guys are really getting their mitts on (Anti-Shipping Missiles, Cheap Diesel-Electric Subs).   On well placed Silkworm and the whole concept goes down the tube.



All that can't be said about the JSS or our current AORs? As for the silk worm hit, the only difference between our AORs and an American AOE would the size of the initial fireball and for how long it would burn.....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Heck no ... I still prefer the C17 carrying Imperial Star Destroyer.   The reality is we better get our frigate fleet and AAD in order before we put anything else in the water beyond the JSS.



Great minds think alike lol


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

> Now since you and others floated some ideas (Which I took shots at), it would be proper if I too floated my "ideas". If the JSS project's funds are what we are "playing with", I'd jump onto the American AOE-X program with the aim of purchasing three vessels, then with my remaining funds, purchase or lease (depending on what i have left over) "USNS like" 55K + ton Ro/Ros.



OK DJL,  the naval types have convinced me.  The only way we are going to get troops, (which we have), guns (which we have), LAVs (which we have) and ammunition (which we could conceivably buy) to someplace where they might be useful is to get the PMs son's to lease us 3 or 4 RoRos.  Would it be asking the Navy too much to offer a couple of frigates as escort?

Cheers,


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

Wouldn't be too much to ask for a couple of frigates but you might want an Area defence destroyer in that mix as well.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

Has there been any designs come out yet showing what the JSS ships are going to look like.


----------



## DJL (16 Oct 2004)

> OK DJL,  the naval types have convinced me.  The only way we are going to get troops, (which we have), guns (which we have), LAVs (which we have) and ammunition (which we could conceivably buy) to someplace where they might be useful is to get the PMs son's to lease us 3 or 4 RoRos.  Would it be asking the Navy too much to offer a couple of frigates as escort?



CSL operates mostly bulk carriers..........If I was going to lease from a Canadian flag company, I'd look at the WMG, namely SEASPAN.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

Would the The Sachsen Class (F124) is Germany's Air Defence Frigate be a good choice to replace the 280's


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

OK.  If you get your Area Air Defence Destroyer, can I get my LSD(A)s?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> Would the The Sachsen Class (F124) is Germany's Air Defence Frigate be a good choice to replace the 280's



They are nice ships but a little too small to be command ships and embark flag staff as well.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

Here is the link to see the The Sachsen Class (F124) Germany's Air Defence Frigate

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f124/index.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> OK.   If you get your Area Air Defence Destroyer, can I get my LSD(A)s?



Well your LSD(A)s does not addreess fleet replenishment like the JSS will.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> Here is the link to see the The Sachsen Class (F124) Germany's Air Defence Frigate
> 
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f124/index.html



Thanks but I got my pocket _Janes_ handy


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

Is the government planning to keep two different types of ships after the 280 retire.  I think they are planning to replace the frigates in 2020 and the 280 are staying in service till around 2012. I read an article saying they want to replace both with one ship type numbering 16 to 18 ships


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

would the The UK Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers be a good choice or a smaller version of the  Arleigh Burke Class Aegis destroyer which i think would be out of our pay scale.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

Once the 280s go which has been apparently been extended to the 2012-14 time frame the next generation of ship (The Common Surface Combatant) will look at area defence ships as the first batch then replace the frigates.

Personally canuck I am leery about anything British right now.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

So true they are having a hard time building there own ships if we had to go off shore i would go German or Dutch they seem able to build ships that work.  the combined surface ship seem good but we will be without air defence ships for around 8 to 10 years.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Oct 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> So true they are having a hard time building there own ships if we had to go off shore i would go German or Dutch they seem able to build ships that work.   the combined surface ship seem good but we will be without air defence ships for around 8 to 10 years.



Yup....does not give me or anyone else in the navy a warm fuzzy feeling either. Hopefully the program will be accelerated but I have my doubts.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

Need to start updating the frigates first then go from there. Have to watch them the last time the trumped the 280 only three ships came out working.


----------



## cobbler (17 Oct 2005)

> What of area air defence? What of re-supply for these carriers and their escorts? What of upgrading the CPFs so they do remain viable? Where are you getting the manpower for these carriers? Training for the crews and airgroups? Selection for the type of aircraft for the air groups? Etc Etc Etc





> Then how is it feasible for the Aussies, who have a Military similar to ours ?



Well Australia currently has three large amphibious ships, and 6 medium amphibious landing craft. We have experience using them all in operations (timor, solomons, bouganville, iraq, etc). We have dedicated navy utility helicopters (seakings, old but they are something), and army blackhawks (soon the better for amphib ops NRH-90). We have army units that already can operate well with the navy in joint beach landings. We are aqquiring three DDG-51 derivative AEGIS air warfare destroyers, and upgrading the ANZAC's. We have the replenishment ships already in place.
So the manpower is already covered, the experience is pretty much there (except the flat top deck movements, we lost that after our carriers were decommisioned), our army know what to do, the infrastructure exists, the protection is in place and/or soon to come, and the helicopters are there.
Whilst our militaries are similar, one thing Australia has is the Amphibious ships and the experiecne in using them, the jump to LHD's will be much easier for us than it would be for Canada. It would be possiblke for you, but it would take longer and would require more investment into aviation, comms, support, doctrine, and so on.

Anyway, rather than start a new thread i thought i would post this here...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/10/16/1264987-cp.html

What are your thoughts? Any chance your government will give it the nod, if so what size ships and what else will need to be purchased (such as new helicopters, landing craft, etc)?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Oct 2005)

If anything it would make more sense for us to get the Rotterdam/Galacia class or the Schelde Enforcer as it would fit our budget a lot better then the San Antonios.


----------

