# Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier



## navymich (18 Jun 2006)

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/510467.html



> Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier
> Rear Admiral says military interested in vessel to carry choppers
> By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jun 2006)

"Expert *floats * idea of Canadian aircraft carrier"

Float?  Aircraft Carrier?  Am I the only one to get it?  :rofl:


----------



## navymich (18 Jun 2006)

Well, floating IS the whole point of having a ship on the water vonG.  Yes, I noticed it too, but I'll let you have your fun.  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jun 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> Well, floating IS the whole point of having a ship on the water vonG.  Yes, I noticed it too, but I'll let you have your fun.  ;D



Thank you!  


(Trust me, I'm having WAY too much fun!)


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

I was gonna be on this one but...alas, I see someone has gotten there first...

or...dare I say...

_"that ship has already sailed"_


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

"But (we don’t want) a conventional aircraft carrier that catapults fighter jets into the air because, quite frankly, I don’t see a need for that in the Canadian context," Rear Admiral McNeil said.

or...when put thru the VSF (Veiled Speech Filter)

We don't got no planes that can do that.  We don't got no money to buy planes that can do that.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I was gonna be on this one but...alas, I see someone has gotten there first...
> 
> or...dare I say...
> 
> _"that ship has already sailed"_


Well done!


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

thank you...thank you very muchhhhhhhh


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jun 2006)

The Brits have operated smaller aircraft carriers because of the Harrier.  This may prove possible if we go with the JSF with the short-takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) version.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

Here's a link to a site with info on the USS Gunston Hall referred to in the piece.

http://navysite.de/ships/lsd44.htm


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Jun 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> "Expert *floats * idea of Canadian aircraft carrier"
> 
> Float?  Aircraft Carrier?  Am I the only one to get it?  :rofl:



Hey, he's an _American physicist_, after all. I thought the use of the word "expert" was the funny part.


----------



## HItorMiss (18 Jun 2006)

I worked off the Gunston Hall back in 01 with Dukes Coy when 1 RCR was IRFL(NATO) god how I hated that ship, but the concept was great we but a whole company of infantry to shore in less time then it took for us to normally get there if we were deploying from our home base to the field.

I have always liked the idea of the mini Carrier but I also agree were going to need air support and not just helo's to get us ashore.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Hey, he's an _American physicist_, after all. I thought the use of the word "expert" was the funny part.



Ummm....you may want to hit the attached link before you second-guess his credibility.


Matthew.   

Link:  http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/103-9366877-6655858?%5Fencoding=UTF8&index=books&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank&field-author-exact=Norman%20Friedman


----------



## toglmonster (18 Jun 2006)

I would love to see the Canadian Navy get two Wasp LHD's, but where would we get the money or the man power. We already or soon will new orders for C-17, Hercules, and Chinook's and what about the new JSS???


----------



## Armymatters (18 Jun 2006)

He might be refering to a ship of the type of the South Korean Landing Platform eXperimental (LPX) Dokdo class Amphibious assault ship, which if fitted with a 15-17 meter in length ski-jump, can operate F-35B's or Harriers. Crew size is reasonable, around 300 men, which is around the same as the Protecteur class replentishment ship we have, and has space for 700 soldiers. Engines are by S.E.M.T. Pielstick, the same manufacturer as the Halifax frigate's diesel engine. A combination carrier/landing ship will deal with both issues at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone. If the CF is getting JSF, might as well convert a part of the order for 20 F-35B STOVL versions as well.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/lp-x.htm


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jun 2006)

Ugh...would be nice if these so called experts would let us get the basics(AAW, ASuW, ASW) worked on before getting the luxuries(carrier ops).


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> "But (we don’t want) a conventional aircraft carrier that catapults fighter jets into the air because, quite frankly, I don’t see a need for that in the Canadian context," Rear Admiral McNeil said.
> 
> or...when put thru the VSF (Veiled Speech Filter)
> 
> We don't got no planes that can do that.  We don't got no money to buy planes that can do that.



Mudman... I coulda swore that the CF-18 Hornet was the F-18 Hornet that the USMC and USN are launching off of carriers  ;D  

Of course ours might be a bit too "brittle" by now to trying throwing into the sky and stopping them with an anchor.

Regardless.  Let's just see if we can build the JSS before we start planning a CVN Battle Group.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

But we certainly wouldn't have gotten the ones complete with the arresting wire hook (insert technical name here) gadgets would we have??

I thought (maybe wrongly) that there was quite a bit of difference in the carrier-born version of the Hornet, because of the stress's on an airframe used in carrier ops??


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

I wonder if THAT would help pilot recruiting/retention?

Carrier Ops.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2006)

Honestly, you could be right about the construction. I really don't have a clue.  I do seem to recall some discussion about the tailhooks still being in place so that the aircraft could be trapped on an arrester wire on a damaged or short field......or my imagination might be running rampant.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

Any pilots/tech's care to weigh in on our speculations???


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jun 2006)

Possibilities:

Dutch
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

French
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/mistral_pm00192001.aspx

UK
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1811

US
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd17/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Armymatters (18 Jun 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Possibilities:
> 
> Dutch
> http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/
> ...



Don't forget South Korea and their latest toy as well.



			
				Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> But we certainly wouldn't have gotten the ones complete with the arresting wire hook (insert technical name here) gadgets would we have??
> 
> I thought (maybe wrongly) that there was quite a bit of difference in the carrier-born version of the Hornet, because of the stress's on an airframe used in carrier ops??



I think that our Hornet's are the same as the USN Hornet's, sans some differences in the avionics suite.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jun 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I think that our Hornet's are the same as the USN Hornet's, sans some differences in the avionics suite.



My god...do you ever shut up ?


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2006)

Tailhook pins mentioned here


> http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip_vr/vr_tour/preflight_intro_e.asp?pID=3



And an image purportedly from a CF-18 here
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/001-100/walk030_CF-18wingfold/walk030.htm

Again though, even if the planes might be capable - too big money for big boat and little friends I think.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Again though, even if the planes might be capable - too big money for big boat and little friends* I think.



* How about: No clear definition of requirement to justify construction of ship and concurrent development of a ship-borne fast air capability.  It's usually best to start the estimate process at the beginning.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

I was on the Air Force website but found squat, so its good you did.

Now the question is why did the JTFA Cmdr, RAdm McNeil, say we don't want that capability?  Is it because we are only talking "baby" carriers and not the ones need to launch F-18s off of?   Or they will be decommissioned before the ship is ready...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> * How about: No clear definition of requirement to justify construction of ship and concurrent development of a ship-borne fast air capability.  It's usually best to start the estimate process at the beginning.



Seen


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Jun 2006)

Maybe they are going to buy back the Bonni from India?  That would be insult to injury now would it not?


----------



## Mortar guy (18 Jun 2006)

You mean buy back the Bonnie from Schick and Gillette, right?

MG


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> * How about: No clear definition of requirement to justify construction of ship and concurrent development of a ship-borne fast air capability.  It's usually best to start the estimate process at the beginning.



That too....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jun 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Maybe they are going to buy back the Bonni from India?  That would be insult to injury now would it not?



Gawd....don't tell me that Urban Legend is still around.....


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Jun 2006)

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> You mean buy back the Bonnie from Schick and Gillette, right?
> 
> MG




Yes l mean Bonnie! I guess it is so is thier any proof it did not get switched in the canal for its sister ship and sent to india under new or should I say Bonnie registration.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Jun 2006)

Just where are all the bodies for such a ship supposed to come from?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Jun 2006)

Just a note...bodies go in bags, soldiers, sailors and airman go in uniform. pet peeve, sorry had to


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 Jun 2006)

The 5th Force, the CN Marines??

Seriously, what size crew are we talking?  Roughly, that is.

Is the Navy that hurting?  I know I am in Halifax but...I don't hear much about the Navy.


----------



## Rigger (19 Jun 2006)

It's been a few years, but the last I can remember is that are Hornets are mostly carrier capable. The only change is a small mod on the nose oleo (landing gear) to disable the catapult arm/adapter. Hook that back up and they are good to go.


----------



## Armymatters (19 Jun 2006)

To give an idea of crew requirements and air wing size for such a proposed small carrier, I've complied a list of them, and have included carrier-like landing ships as well. Airplane is also listed.

Pure Aircraft Carriers:
UK Invincible class VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 20,500 tons full load
Aircraft: 24 aircraft, various mix
Crew size: 725, plus 365 for air wing

UK Queen Elizabeth CVF STOVL carrier
Displacement: 55,000 tons full load
Aircraft: 30 JSF, 4 ASaC aircraft, 6 ASW helicopters
Crew size: 600, plus 600 for air wing

Italy's Conte di Cavour VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 27,100 tons full load
Aircraft: 12-16 Harrier's (JSF planned), 3 AEW helicopters, 4-6 ASW helicopters. Max 24 aircraft
Crew size: 450, plus 203 air wing. Accommodation for 1,210 total available.
Notes: hangar can double as vehicle hold, if aircraft not embarked, capacity of 24 tanks or more lighter vehicles, fitted with side vehicle access ramps as well as two elevators

Italy's Garibaldi VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 13,850 tons full load
Aircraft: 16 Harrier's or 18 helicopters (Sea King sized)
Crew size: 550, plus 230 air wing

Thailand's Chakri Naruebet class VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 11,500 tons full load
Aircraft: 10 Harrier's or 10 helicopters 
Crew size: 455, plus 145 air wing.

Spain's Principe de Asturias VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 17,190 tons full load
Aircraft: 12 Harrier's and 12 helicopters (Sikorsky SeaHawk series)
Crew size: 600, plus 230 air wing.

Amphibious Assault Ships

Spain's Buque de Proyección Estratégica LHD
Displacement: 27,000 tons full load
Aircraft: 20 Harrier's in aircraft carrier mode
Crew size: 243, Air wing: 172, troops: 902
Vehicle capacity: two levels, 6,000m total, capacity for 6,000 tonnes load each. Stern dock for four LCM landing boats or one LCAC.

Italy's San Giorgio class LHD
Displacement: 7650 tons full load
Aircraft: 3 Sea King's
Crew size: 190, troops: 330
Vehicle capacity: 30 tanks, or up to 36 tracked armoured vehicles. 3 landing craft

UK's Ocean class LPH
Displacement: 21,578 tons full load
Aircraft: 12 EH-101 sized helicopters, six Lynx helicopters
Crew size: 284, air wing: 180,troops: 800
Vehicle capacity: 40 vehicles. 4 landing craft. Not designed for landing tanks

France's Foudre class LPD
Displacement: 21,578 tons full load
Aircraft: 11 Super Puma sized helicopters, 2 Super Frelons
Crew size: 223, troops: 467. Emergency accomodation for 1,600.
Vehicle capacity: 60 vehicles. 10 landing craft.

South Korea's Landing Platform eXperimental Dokdo class LPD
Displacement: 18,800 tons full load
Aircraft: 15 helicopters (Sikorsky S-70), can be fitted for Harrier or JSF use
Crew size: 300, troops: 720.
Vehicle capacity: Up to 200 vehicles. 2 LCAC's

Japan's Osumi class LST
Displacement: 8,900 tons standard
Aircraft: 2 Chinook's, 2 Sikorsky S-70's
Crew size: 138, troops: 330.
Vehicle capacity: 10-20 tanks, plus 40 large vehicles. 2 LCAC's

Pretty much an overview of current and future ships from allied nations.


----------



## Bert (19 Jun 2006)

Quote from the original article...
>
"But if you’re going to operate expeditionary (forces), independently, I’m talking about a carrier."

He questioned how Canadian aircraft would get to such places if there were no friendly country nearby to use as a base.

"If I were a soldier in the Canadian army . . . I would worry a lot about who would be there to support me when I’m on the ground being fired at."

But if Canada wants to launch its own expeditionary forces, it needs a carrier armed with planes that can protect troops, Mr. Friedman said.

"Otherwise you’re going to have a lot of dead Canadians who don’t deserve to be dead . . . because they won’t have any air support."

The Canadian military is interested in acquiring a small carrier, said Rear Admiral Dan McNeil, the commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic. It would be equipped with large helicopters that could ferry troops ashore.
<

If Canada pumps enough money into the capability, then anything is possible.
But reality is what you bump into with your eyes open and the lights turned
on.

Discussing the micro-details of aircraft is one thing, but the larger consideration
of HOW Canada could provide effective air support/transport to Canadian troops
as part of an independent expeditionary force is another thing.  

Carrier threads regarding Canada can be searched on army.ca and I won't restate 
whats been written before.  Yet the cost of acquiring the carrier, the aircraft, the
crews, maintenance of naval vessels, aircraft, crew and ship rotation, providing
effective defense of a carrier group (sub, surface, air, sat) , etc, should be considered in 
parallel with the scenarios the carrier would be used independently by Canada or  
as part of another carrier group.   Is it a practical investment given the combined capability
of the CF?


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (19 Jun 2006)

let me guess, if the CF did this and the government  got behind it and decided to buy into the plan.

at least 10 years before the ship was floating in dry dock, airforce planes would be need of major replacing and retraining, cost of 2 aircraft lines would be very costly. so the old CF 18 would have to go.

cost to replace the Cf 18 how many  billions?
plan to purchase new aircraft how many hundreds of millions spent on planning ?
purchase trainiing equipment or will home pc and one good dvd do it all?
6 billion if one aircraft would be able to be equipped to do both land and sea operations?

now a ship? or would it require 2 ships , east and west coast ops?
how many more aircraft would it require for both coasts ?
would the new current helicopter fit in the hangers on the new ships? ( remember the hangers and the city class troubles)
crew how many required? where would they train at to have a training staff to actually train the crews ?
the costs would end up eating every cent in the DND  budget for life? no more army, airforce or donut warriors at HQ jobs


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jun 2006)

It seems to me that the idea of an *independent* Canadian expeditionary force is simply a non-starter.  And in any coalition force of which we are likely to be a member other members will be able to provide carrier air support if necessary.

Whereas an amphibious assault ship does make sense when operating in a coalition.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Guy (19 Jun 2006)

I'm sure Canada could afford an aircraft carrier, if that became a naitonal priority.  But the carrier is only part of the equation -- as several posters have alluded to.  Without getting into other aspects of the CF that will have to be replaced or augmented within the next few years, an aircraft carrier is only one ship in a coordinated battle group.

Let's assume we're talking about a small carrier with a single squadron of VSTOL capable aircraft, plus supporting helos, etc.  That ship will require tanker and supply ships, destroyer/frigate escorts (some of which would have to be capable of limited shore bombardment capability), and God knows what other kinds of ships.  I can't imagine a battle group centered on a small carrier numbering less than 10-12 ships.  

Like Mark, I think an assault ship makes more sense.  But I can also see Canadians deciding on a larger navy, including one or two small carriers.  Competition with China and a re-armed Japan might make it necessary.  It's certainly a possibility.  

Jim


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 Jun 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the idea of an *independent* Canadian expeditionary force is simply a non-starter.  And in any coalition force of which we are likely to be a member other members will be able to provide carrier air support if necessary.



In our admittedly brief history as a nation, Canada has never,ever sent an independent expeditionary force overseas - and in fact, never sent troops overseas via Canadian means - we've always had the US or Britain transporting our troops, be it South Africa, the wars, or Korea. Which is why I wonder why the occasional person will express the opinion that having a small navy is a "travesty" - we were very well able to fight German U-boats in the big one, but we've never had to go it alone, nor are we likely to. Sticking to what we're good at makes more sense - a larger army with air assets would be more in line with what we can do to pay our allies back.  Decent submarines and ice breakers for the north would be of more value strategically, IMO, than an aircraft carrier. 

Edit for spelling


----------



## GK .Dundas (19 Jun 2006)

Let's assume we're talking about a small carrier with a single squadron of VSTOL capable aircraft, plus supporting helos, etc.  That ship will require tanker and supply ships, destroyer/frigate escorts (some of which would have to be capable of limited shore bombardment capability), and God knows what other kinds of ships.  I can't imagine a battle group centered on a small carrier numbering less than 10-12 ships.  

[/quote] why 12? the U.S. manages quite well with 5 escorts and an AOR.


----------



## Old Guy (19 Jun 2006)

Um -- let me check.  I think the 5 escorts and AOR are the ships that are always in company with the carrier.  Battle groups, when committed in a hostile environment, always contain more ships than that.  At least, that's how I read the last article I saw on the subject.

Jim


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jun 2006)

Where are the sailors going to come  from ?

There are already positions going unfilled.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jun 2006)

Its simple Whiskey...they will come from the same place as the aircraft carrier,....a press release.


----------



## techie (19 Jun 2006)

An aircraft carrier in our fleet might draw some interest from the public, to fill those spots, or, all those in teh Navy who want to leave might think twice if they possibly could be posted on the Carrier


----------



## Inspir (20 Jun 2006)

Wow, just googled the price for a new aircraft carrier:

- Average aircraft carrier price: 4 billion dollars
- Annual operating cost: 2 billion dollars 

Of course this is for the "21ST CENTURY CARRIER". I'm sure if we ever did get a carrier it would be a used one  :dontpanic:


Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281161.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Jun 2006)

Inspir said:
			
		

> Wow, just googled the price for a new aircraft carrier:
> 
> - Average aircraft carrier price: 4 billion dollars
> - Annual operating cost: 2 billion dollars
> ...



I just got shivers remembering the Liberal attack ad from the last election....


Matthew.


----------



## Inspir (20 Jun 2006)

Speaking of Liberals, I'm sure when they heard the word "aircraft carrier" this is what they had in mind.







Foooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooore!


----------



## Spoonfed (20 Jun 2006)

How many F-35s do we plan on getting, and are they the A(US$45mill), B(US$60mill), or C(US$50mill) models?  And after we get them, how do we pay for a carrier?  Or can we get those on layaway.....


----------



## hugh19 (20 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> In our admittedly brief history as a nation, Canada has never,ever sent an independent expeditionary force overseas - and in fact, never sent troops overseas via Canadian means - we've always had the US or Britain transporting our troops, be it South Africa, the wars, or Korea. Which is why I wonder why the occasional person will express the opinion that having a small navy is a "travesty" - we were very well able to fight German U-boats in the big one, but we've never had to go it alone, nor are we likely to. Sticking to what we're good at makes more sense - a larger army with air assets would be more in line with what we can do to pay our allies back.  Decent submarines and ice breakers for the north would be of more value strategically, IMO, than an aircraft carrier.
> 
> Edit for spelling



Um actually Canada has launched one amphibious assault independantly. But it was a all navy show in El Salvador in 1932.


----------



## hugh19 (20 Jun 2006)

techie said:
			
		

> An aircraft carrier in our fleet might draw some interest from the public, to fill those spots, or, all those in teh Navy who want to leave might think twice if they possibly could be posted on the Carrier



Ahh another ignorant person talking out thier rear aperture again. Go ask soome yank sailors what they think of being posted to a carrier is like. All the ones I have ever talked to dislike it cause the ship and crew are so large they are just numbers. They would rather be on a small ship. So yeah most people I know here would be the same way. So great retention idea.


----------



## GAP (20 Jun 2006)

Inspir said:
			
		

> Speaking of Liberals, I'm sure when they heard the word "aircraft carrier" this is what they had in mind.



What's tha par?


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Jun 2006)

sledge said:
			
		

> Um actually Canada has launched one amphibious assault independantly. But it was a all navy show in El Salvador in 1932.



Exactly how can sliding up to a dock in sunny Acatjutla to untwist the knickers of half a dozen spousal units of English diplomats be considered an amphibious assault? [without any orders from the government to do so, I might add. Or should I say, on "Hose" orders were they acting?]


----------



## Old Guy (20 Jun 2006)

Currently, the US Navy uses a flexible approach to carrier battle groups (main source: Wikpedia and records of actual cruises.)

Carrier Strike Groups or Battle Groups have different makeup depending on the mission.  Lists of ships making up the battle group of various US carriers on cruises made within the last twenty years range from as few as five to as many as ten ships.  Generally, the strike group is set up as follows:

- one carrier, Nimitz or Kitty Hawk class
- two guided missile cruisers, Ticonderoga class
- two or three guided missile destroyers, Arleigh Burke class
- one frigate, Oliver Hazard Perry class
- two attack submarines, Los Angeles class
- one resupply vessel, Sacramento or Supply class

In all of the dozen or so cruises I found informaiton on, only one attack sub was assigned as part of the strike group.  The resupply vessel would, in many, if not most, cases, be supplemented by a second supply ship.  

A deployment into an area where submarines are a threat would result in more frigates being assigned as part of the strike group.

Generally, a carrier attack group would be supported by one or more independent ASW/AAW forces.  In addition, additional forces might be assigned, such as a Marine assault force.

So, a carrier is just one of many vessels used to carry out missions assigned by national authority.  The accompanying battle group will vary in size depending on length of mission, type of mission, and threat analysis.

Jim


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Jun 2006)

Real Power from Aircraft Carriers:
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the copyright act.

U.S. begins massive war games in Pacific

HAGATNA, Guam (AP) -- Three aircraft carriers filled the skies with fighters as one of the largest U.S. military exercises in decades got underway Tuesday off this island in the western Pacific.

For the first time ever, a Chinese delegation was sent to observe the U.S. war games. But as the show of American military power began, North Korea -- one of the region's most unpredictable countries -- was rattling some swords of its own.

The maneuvers, dubbed "Valiant Shield," bring three carriers together in the Pacific for the first time since the Vietnam War. Some 30 ships, 280 aircraft and 22,000 troops will be participating in the five-day war games, which end Friday.
The exercises are intended to boost the ability of the Navy, Air Force and Marines to work together and respond quickly to potential contingencies in this part of the world, U.S. military officials said. Even U.S. Coast Guard vessels were joining in the maneuvers.

"The exercises are taking place on land, sea, air, space and cyberspace," said Senior Master Sgt. Charles Ramey. "They cover the whole spectrum."

The maneuvers mark the first major operation in this remote U.S. territory about halfway between Hawaii and Japan since the announcement last month that 8,000 Marines would be moved here from Okinawa in part of the biggest realignment of the U.S. forces in Asia in decades.

Though planned months ago, they come amid heightened concern in Asia over North Korea.

Officials in the United States, South Korea and Japan say they believe North Korea is preparing to test launch a Taepodong 2 long-range ballistic missile. The missile is believed be able to reach parts of the western United States. (Full story)

Pyongyang shocked Tokyo by launching a Taepodong that flew over Japan's main island in 1998. North Korea claimed the launch successfully placed a satellite in orbit, but that claim has been widely disputed.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il agreed on a moratorium on long-range missile launches during a summit with Japan in 1999. But Pyongyang said Tuesday it is no longer bound by that accord.

Military officials here had no comment on the activity in North Korea, or on what specific tactics or scenarios are being used in the exercises.

They stress, however, that the exercises have been opened to outside observation and are not intended to provoke North Korea.

"These exercises are not aimed at any one nation," Cmdr. Mike Brown said.

The exercises are instead intended to provide training in "detecting, locating, tracking and engaging" a wide range of threats in the air, land and sea.

Representatives from China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Russia and Singapore were invited to attend.

China's presence has been singled out as particularly significant.

Though military relations between Beijing and Washington cooled when an American spy plane was captured in 2001, senior U.S. military officials are cautiously trying to mend the rift. At the same time, the Pentagon has expressed strong concern over the secrecy that shrouds China's rapidly modernizing military.

Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific, said before the exercises began that implicit in the invitation was the expectation that China would reciprocate.

China's 10-member delegation includes one top-ranking officer each from the People's Liberation Army, air force and navy, the official Xinhua News Agency said Tuesday.

"The invitation to observe the U.S. military exercises is a very important component of exchanges between the militaries of China and the United States," Xinhua quoted an unidentified Defense Ministry official as saying.

Along with the USS Kitty Hawk, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln carrier strike groups, U.S. force fighters and B-2 bombers operating out of Guam's Andersen Air Force Base will join the maneuvers.

Brown said the exercises were to be held again next year, and then become a biennial event.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press


----------



## Armymatters (20 Jun 2006)

I don't think it is appropriate to look to how the Americans escort their aircraft carriers, as they have the largest and most expensive carriers in the world. Canada will probally never in our lifetime get a carrier that big. I think it is more appropirate to look at how nations with smaller aircraft carriers (re: UK, Italy, Spain) escort their carriers as if Canada does acquire an aircraft carrier, it will be smaller than any American aircraft carrier and more of the size of the smaller aircraft carriers of the world.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Jun 2006)

I reiterate:



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> * How about: No clear definition of requirement to justify construction of ship and concurrent development of a ship-borne fast air capability.  It's usually best to start the estimate process at the beginning.



This is going down the same road all of the "let's buy these planes" threads did.  Start at the beginning.  Justify the need for a carrier.  Justify the expense.  Present the argument you would like to see your MP offer to explain the need for a carrier to (a.) the House of Parliament and (b.) your fellow constituents.  Once you establish the need, and convince the "buyers", then start kicking tires and picking seat covers.


----------



## Old Guy (21 Jun 2006)

Michael,

I agree completely.  However, is there any possibility that such an argument (Canada needs a carrier!) is likely to gain any traction in the forseeable future?  I don't think so either.  I'm sure that's why the thread has gone directly to: "Gee, if we could have a carrier, what color should it be?".

Besides, weapons systems have a way of morphing away from original justifications.  One example is the A-10 Warthog, discussed at length in other posts.  Another is the Abrahms MBT.  Designed for combat with Soviet forces on the plains of Germany, it has become a first-rate (though not perfect) street fighter -- a job for which it was never seriously considered nor justified for.

So the question, "Does Canada need an aircraft carrier?", can be answered in many ways.  As you correctly point out, SOME kind of justification has to occur or no such vessel will ever be built.  But is this justification likely to be a carefully laid out staff study?  Or is it more likely to be a political event we can't predict?

Obviously, a foreign power rubbing Canada's lack of sea power in the electorate's collective face might be one.  Another could be the sight of Canadian soldiers and airmen dying in some overseas hotspot because US carrier support is too far away to provide support.

The list is endless.

Me, I'm just tossing out ideas and information.   >

BTW, for those of you a trifle familiar with my writing, I have a novel outlined in which a scratch Marine unit and a small Canadian outfit are committed to action in a small island nation just off the African coast.  Their task is to put an end to mass murder and torture (such as was not done in other African situations!).  Unfortunately, the combined force is committed without adequate support and they immediately run into far more opposition than anyone suspected.  Yes!  An intelligence failure compounded by stupidity.  Imagine that.

Maybe, as part of the background, I'll have a partly completed assault carrier sitting in a Canadian harbor somewhere, delayed by bureaucratic bungling and a lack of committment.  Heh.

Nah.  That would never happen.   :
So . . . will the book ever get written?  I dunno.  This damn job keeps me busy.
jim


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jun 2006)

Jim brings up an interesting point about the discussion on whether technology or tactics leads:  Do you adjust tactics to accomodate available technology or technology to accomodate tactics?

It seems to me in peace time you have the difficulty of: not knowing who your next enemy is really going to be; not knowing how you are going to be attacked; nor where nor when; nor if you yourself are going to be attacking instead of defending.  At the same time you have the "luxury" of time to ponder all these imponderables and develop technologies to meet all sorts of situations.  Solutions are heavily weighted towards what worked the last time.  Due to lack of funds available in peacetime you don't always get the technology you want/need to meet all possible threats.

Meanwhile potential enemies are looking at your tactics and technology on open display and determining how to invalidate them.  They then attack away from strength.  The best you can then hope for is that some of your technology will maintain some capabilities, often at the edge of their operational envelopes.  You end up making do with what's available and adjusting both tactics and technology accordingly.

So in peacetime technology slowly develops in great leaps to accomodate tactics,  neither being sure that they will be the correct answer for the next enemy.  In conflict, tactics adjusts quickly based on available technology and then technology hustles to catch up.

So does Canada need a Carrier?  How good is your imagination?  If we had one we could probably figure out how to take advantage of it.  The fact that we don't have one means that we have to look at other ways of working.  Orbiting US B52s from Diego Garcia is one alternative solution, as Duey mentioned on another thread.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (21 Jun 2006)

The only caveat I'd add is that we need to ensure we're not looking at the world exactly as it looks today, and instead looking ahead 15-years - 25-years at what the world will look like then, and the potential applications at that point.  In particular, if you look at the demographics Africa I think things are going to get much worse from a failed state standpoint and we have to decide if the lives we can save by deploying ground forces with fast air support to halt genocides is worth our investment or if instead we're spend those funds in other ways (debt reduction, tax cuts, [gag]institutional childcare[/gag]).

Bottom Line:  The type of deployments we're willing to participate in over the next 20 years (defined by: the type of conflict, the strength of the enemy, the support of allies with their assets and the geographic location) should be driving *all* procurement, not just talk of a carrier and fast air assets.  My own take is that there are a lot of assets I think we need to add before we buy F-35's at this point, but if we're buying LHD's (as opposed to LPD's), I'd be ensuring I had the ability to carry the JSF if we determined we need it later.

Current Procurement Priorities:
Replace the C-130 before they fall from the sky (which in my opinion includes C-17's)
Heavy Lift Helicopters
New Trucks (with special anti-IED armour upgrades)
Improved surveillance UAV providing 24-7 coverage of all deployment theatres (push access to information as far down the command structure as possible and tie into artillery support)
Uparmoring all ground assets including supply vehicles with focus on anti-IED armour
Add HIMARS to extend range of artillery support
Etc.

....in addition to ensuring the Reserves train with what they'll deploy with.


JMHO,

Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jun 2006)

> Add HIMARS to extend range of artillery support


 From Blackshirt

And to that I would add, decrease the need for in theatre Air Support.  If the Air Force is being employed to occasionally deliver one or two 250-500 lb packages of HE with precision then the HIMARS/GMRLS-ATACMSP combination is capable of taking up some of that slack.  The range envelope is something like 70 to 100 km for the GMRLS and up to 300 km for the ATACMs.  They have the additional advantages of not needing a runway, being under the local commander's immediate control, and don't burn up a lot of gas just waiting for the fire call.

Which brings us back to the need for an aircraft carrier.


----------



## GAP (21 Jun 2006)

please what is "HIMARS/GMRLS-ATACMSP " ???


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jun 2006)

Sorry GAP.  These article gives some answers.

The HIMARS is the truckmounted version of the MRLS.  HIMARS carries one pod of 6 Missiles/Rockets or one ATACMS.   The MRLS Track is heavier but carries two pods of 6 or 2x ATACMS.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-140.html
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/mlrs.html

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jun 2006)

Its always funny how the greater supporters for us getting an aircraft carrier are those that don't even sail.....

Our focus should be:
1) Replacing the AORs (now being done)
2) Retention and recruiting of new sailors
3) Gaining an Amphibious capability for expeditionary ops (Gen Hilliers BHS-being looked at)
4) Replacing the subs (not being done)
5) Replacing the 280s and Halifax classes (being looked at)
6) Improving our patrol and mine warfare capability
7) Gain a capability to operate up North (being talked about)
8) Maybe after those issues are addressed then maybe we should consider a small carrier.

Sorry to always rain on this parade but honestly we have other priorties in the Navy and a carrier is not one of them....


----------



## FSTO (23 Jun 2006)

3) Gaining an Amphibious capability for expeditionary ops (Gen Hilliers BHS-being looked at)


BHS would be the carrier type that our good expert was talking about in Halifax. Something that could launch more than 2 Helo's at a time would be very advantageous.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jun 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> 3) Gaining an Amphibious capability for expeditionary ops (Gen Hilliers BHS-being looked at)
> 
> 
> BHS would be the carrier type that our good expert was talking about in Halifax. Something that could launch more than 2 Helo's at a time would be very advantageous.



Agreed but most posters sem to be leaning towards a fixed winged type of carrier.


----------



## Armymatters (23 Jun 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Agreed but most posters sem to be leaning towards a fixed winged type of carrier.



I am thinking more of a LHD type warship, a ship that can land troops and possibily launch fixed-wing airplanes. Something in the range of 15,000 to 24,000 tons for starters would be a good start and a decent balance between capability and costs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jun 2006)

While an LHD type is ideal, I still don't see the need to go for fixed wing right away, nice to have but lets keep to the basics.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> While an LHD type is ideal, I still don't see the need to go for fixed wing right away, nice to have but lets keep to the basics.



Agreed.  Besides, who knows, maybe the STOVL F35 will get off the ground and be a viable alternative in the future. 15 to 20 years out.  In the meantime, it's nice that we might have started to think about walking.  No need to contemplate running just yet.


----------



## Centurian1985 (23 Jun 2006)

"Bring back the Bonaventure!"   Ive heard this cry a few times.  Like previously posted, it has almost reached 'myth' status.  

Main points against an aircraft carrier purchase, from senior Canadian naval officers circa 1997:
1.  Support fleet - we dont have a 'support fleet', so need more than just the carrier, need a program designed to create Carrier Group.  (Already mentioned earlier in this thread)
2.  Power projection - the whole point of a carrier system is to project air power into any foriegn airspace.  Its not a platform for waving the flag, its a means of influencing the actons of another nation.  Who exactly are we going to intimidate?  

My point, based on todays situation:
3.  Time - already pointed out, takes a long time to build, outfit, train crew, and practice manouevres before actually going into action.  The vessel was decommissioned in 1970 because there was no use for it.  Up until 1990 there was no need for a carrier to support our operations in other countries.  We could have used it in 1991 in the Persian gulf, and right now, it could be of use to support operations in Afghansistan.  But will it still be feasable 10 years from now?


----------



## Armymatters (24 Jun 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Main points against an aircraft carrier purchase, from senior Canadian naval officers circa 1997:
> 1.  Support fleet - we dont have a 'support fleet', so need more than just the carrier, need a program designed to create Carrier Group.  (Already mentioned earlier in this thread)



I have been chewing on this issue for a short bit, and I think I have a solution. It's highly idealistic, but I tried to take into account for some of the variables, and have made allowances for sustainability.
Warships
Current fleet:

1. The 12 Halifax class frigates: 8 of them can be set aside as the support fleet. The other 4 are divided as follows: 2 for patrol work, and 2 in maintenance and training. They can be in the future replaced by a new fleet of 12 warships allocated from the Single Ship Transition Project (SSTP).

2. MCDV's: 6 of the MCDV's are to be transferred to the Coast Guard. The remaining 6 will be tasked as follows: 4 for MCM work, and 2 in maintenance and training. 

3. Submarines: I am waiting to see how the Vic's turn out. If they will operate as spec, 2 will be tasked for patrols and deployments, while the remaining 2 are in maintenance and training. However, if the Vic's are not turning out as planned, the Vic's will be disposed of, an a new fleet of 6 submarines will be acquired. 4 will be tasked for patrols and deployments, while the remaining 2 are again maintenance and training.

Retirements/replacements in pipeline:

1. AOR's: The current 2 Protecteur class AOR's are to be retired. They will be replaced by a new fleet of 4 dedicated AOR's (no transport role). Of the 4, 2 will be tasked as part of the support fleet, and the remaining 2 are tasked as follows: 1 as part of a sea lift contingency, and the other one in maintenance and training.

2. Tribal Destroyers: 8 ships from the SSTP are to be allocated as the replacements for the current Tribals. Of those, they are to be allocated as follows: 2 as part of the support fleet, 2 attached to various USN carrier groups, 2 for UN or NATO deployments, and 2 in maintenance and training.

New builds in pipeline:

1. Northern Patrol Vessels (Armed Icebreakers): 3 will be acquired. 2 will be tasked for patrol work, and the remaining ship will be in maintenance and training.

New builds not in pipeline:

1. OPV's: 12 OPV's will be acquired, of which are divided into the following roles: 10 for patrol work, and the other 2 are in maintenance and training.

2. BHS/Mini-carrier: 2 ships of the LHD type, minimum of 20,000 tons. This ship will fill Hiller's desire for a Big Honkin' Ship. Ships allocated to the support fleet will accompany one of them, while the other is in maintenance and training. To save development costs, purchasing a foreign design for construction in a foreign shipyard, and fitted out for Canadian use in Canadian shipyards. If the situation demands however, both can be deployed, one as a landing ship, the other as a mini-carrier, or both as carriers. My personal preferred solution is Spain's Buque de Proyección Estratégica LHD.

3. RO/RO ships: 2 dedicated RO/RO ships will be acquired, either through direct purchase or long-term lease with immediate CF availability. If directly purchased and owned by the CF, the ship can be made available to allied nations through lease. 

4. LCAC's: Depending on the ship design, a group of LCAC's will be procured. 6 will be sufficient, 2 will be assigned to the LHD, while the remaining 4 are spares, or in maintenance and training.

5. Landing craft: Alternatively, conventional landing craft can be procured instead of LCAC's.

Total new build ships: 31

Airplanes
Helicopters: 

1. 54 Sikorsky S-92's will be acquired (26 more than the current order). Of those, 7 each are assigned to each LHD, 12 are in maintenance and training, 4 are assigned to the standing AOR, and 2 each to the other two operational AOR's.

2. Heavy Lift Helicopters: Such a ship should be able to embark at least 1 Chinook sized helicopter, and Chinooks (or something similar) are already in the pipeline.

Fixed wing aircraft:

1. F-35B: 40 F-35B's will be acquired, each ship carrying 14. Since one LHD is usually on deployment, 14 are on the deployment, the remaining 14 are in training, and the remaining 12 are in maintenance or as attrition spares.

Money spent: Untold billions of dollars.



> 2.  Power projection - the whole point of a carrier system is to project air power into any foriegn airspace.  Its not a platform for waving the flag, its a means of influencing the actons of another nation.  Who exactly are we going to intimidate?



Could be a third world nation that borders the sea (lots of third world nations border the sea) where UN resolutions need enforcement. "Follow the damned UN resolutions or else we bomb you back into the Stone Age"  : Places like Sudan, Liberia, Somalia (I heard Somalia is again on the outbreak of of civil war), Myanmar, etc. It can also be used for long term diaster relief in areas close to a ocean (like the 2004 Tsunami, where the Abraham Lincoln used its helicopters to fly in personnel and relief supplies to stricken areas. After Lincoln left, the LHD USS Bonhomme Richard and the hospital ship USNS Mercy took over). With the US mission to Indonesia during the Tsunami, international public opinion of the US soared, especially in Indonesia. Big potential as a PR booster for Canada externally, and for the Canadian Forces inside Canada.

Edit: I forgot. We also need to recruit more men and increase the military budget a bit.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jun 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Total new build ships: 31
> 
> Airplanes
> Helicopters: 54 Sikorsky S-92's
> ...




Once again:



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I reiterate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice leap from "I like the leg room in this ship" to "Why not buy the complete set."

You still haven't built a case for a major capital ship in the first place.  And a fleet project is a pretty expensive PR campaign.  perhaps we should confine ourselves to reality based discussions, or just flag them with [fantasy] ...[/fantasy] and we can just move them to Radio Chatter.


----------



## navymich (24 Jun 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Edit: I forgot. We also need to recruit more *men* and increase the military budget *a bit*.



But no women.....and just "a bit"....oh wait, maybe that falls into the "fantasy fantasy" stuff too.  ;D


----------



## Armymatters (24 Jun 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Once again:
> 
> 
> This is going down the same road all of the "let's buy these planes" threads did.  Start at the beginning.  Justify the need for a carrier.  Justify the expense.  Present the argument you would like to see your MP offer to explain the need for a carrier to (a.) the House of Parliament and (b.) your fellow constituents.  Once you establish the need, and convince the "buyers", then start kicking tires and picking seat covers.
> ...



I know. Other than satisfying Hiller's BHS requirements, I myself am having trouble justifying a major capital ship purchase of this magnitude, besides a desire to see a proper Blue-water navy for Canada. I just showed how it can be escorted with current ships in place and with what needs to be procured on top of what is already in the pipeline.



			
				navymich said:
			
		

> But no women.....and just "a bit"....oh wait, maybe that falls into the "fantasy fantasy" stuff too.  ;D



I know the more PC word is "personnel", but to hell with it for now.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jun 2006)

You forgot the markup:



			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> I know. Other than satisfying Hiller's BHS requirements, I myself am having trouble justifying a major capital ship purchase of this magnitude, besides a desire to see a proper Blue-water navy for Canada.[fantasy] I just showed how it can be escorted with ... completely restructuring the ... current ships in place and with [the 31 other ships and assorted aircraft] what needs to be procured on top of what is already in the pipeline.[/fantasy]


----------



## Armymatters (24 Jun 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You forgot the markup:



Thanks  

In short, I can't justify a carrier right now. I am more worried about sustainability of the Canadian Navy to maintain a steady tempo of deployments yearly, besides the current cycle of major deployments one year, and the next year almost none. After we fix the sustainability issue, then we MAYBE can talk about a mini-carrier. MAYBE.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jun 2006)

Then why don't you put your intellectual meanderings towards practical suggestions supporting solutions to that problem, rather than fanstasy Navy establishments.

Study the realities of the limitations under which the CF works in today's world, then examine possible alternatives.   Trying to propose "solutions" that are well outside the realm of the possible is wasted effort.


----------



## navymich (24 Jun 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> In short, I can't justify a carrier right now.


Wow, guess I missed the part in your profile where you're the one making the decision for this.


----------



## Armymatters (24 Jun 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Then why don't you put your intellectual meanderings towards practical suggestions supporting solutions to that problem, rather than fanstasy Navy establishments.
> 
> Study the realities of the limitations under which the CF works in today's world, then examine possible alternatives.   Trying to propose "solutions" that are well outside the realm of the possible is wasted effort.



I tend to follow the Naval League of Canada's paper, _Canadian Naval Requirements for the 21st Century_ by Peter Haydon of the University of Calgary proposal for fleet sustainability. I tweaked the numbers a bit for my proposal of how to escort such a proposed carrier. It's getting a bit dated (published in late 2001), but it is still very relavant, and bang on in some issues (the armed icebreakers for example, they called for a fleet of 3 Northern Patrol Vessels back then, I guess that is where the Tories got the idea for armed icebreakers).
http://www.navyleague.ca/eng/ma/papers/Canadian%20Naval%20Requirements%20for%2021st%20Century.pdf



			
				navymich said:
			
		

> Wow, guess I missed the part in your profile where you're the one making the decision for this.



How dare you point out errors in my syntax


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jun 2006)

And we once had a plan for nuclear submarines too, but no-one has "floated" that for some time.

Reality based planning for short term, i.e., foreseeable future, measures is realistic.  Fantasy navy plans are great for think tanks that don't bother to justify how a national budget and public relations initiative would actually have to buy and sell (respectively) their pipe dream.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jun 2006)

BTW Army matters the SCSC calls for 16-18 ships to replace the CPF and 280s not the 12 you mention in a previous post.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jun 2006)

To be fair to armymatters - in spite of his "ordnung must sein" tone - nothing on his shopping list is out of the running with the exception of the "aircraft carriers" and the F35s.

In every other case the vessels are under consideration.  He is quibbling about numbers.

He seems to be trading in 6 real MCDVs and 8-10 "proposed" SCSC/SSTP vessels as well as 3-5 out of the 6-8 "possible NPVs/Arctic Icebreakers" against 10 OPVs (also discussed previously) and 1-2 more AOR/JSS.

The nature of the BHS, whether JSS, LHD or RoRo and the number 1 or 2, seems to be very much up for debate.

16-18 SCSC + 2-3 JSS + 1-2 BHS + 6-8 NPVs = 25 to 31 new build hulls under consideration in any event.  And we haven't made allowances for YAG/Orca/Inshore Patrol Vessels.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Jun 2006)

When I hear and read about the Standing Contingency Task Force (SCTF), I see a force that appears to be designed for power projection.  If we truly want to have a battalion or so of troops floating around and then crossing over someones shore (by boat or aviation) then we truly need an aircraft carrier capable of putting up jets for both fleet defence and strike duties.

Please note that I am not advocating either the SCTF or an aircraft carrier.  I am just suggesting that the two go together.  An SCTF without a carrier might lead to some hurt feelings if it actually tries to operate in harm's way.

Carriers have huge manpower bills, and if you just buy one then what do you do when it needs refit?  

I'll get out the pool and back into my sandbox now.

2B


----------



## FSTO (24 Jun 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> When I hear and read about the Standing Contingency Task Force (SCTF), I see a force that appears to be designed for power projection.  If we truly want to have a battalion or so of troops floating around and then crossing over someones shore (by boat or aviation) then we truly need an aircraft carrier capable of putting up jets for both fleet defence and strike duties.
> 
> Please note that I am not advocating either the SCTF or an aircraft carrier.  I am just suggesting that the two go together.  An SCTF without a carrier might lead to some hurt feelings if it actually tries to operate in harm's way.
> 
> ...



If we do this right the SCTF will be carried to its objective by an amphibious ship with a long flat deck that can launch 3 to 5 large Helicopters at once.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Jun 2006)

The helicopters are only a piece of the requirement.  Without fighters you aren't really projecting power.  You're projecting vulnerability.

To me, SCTF = Marine Corps and Marine Corps = requirement for Carriers with jets.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jun 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> The helicopters are only a piece of the requirement.  Without fighters you aren't really projecting power.  You're projecting vulnerability.
> 
> To me, SCTF = Marine Corps and Marine Corps = requirement for Carriers with jets.



We do not have the manpower, money or public backing to get a traditional power projecting aircraft carrier. This talk of one is idiotic in my mind. But we can afford a ship that will carry a STOVL type fighter/bomber and helos.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Jun 2006)

I am scared less of people advocating a carrier than of people advocating the SCTF without one.

How many Invicible-esque carriers would we get?  You'd need more than one in order to guarantee having one ready at any given time.  What SVTOL jet is going to go on this carrier?  Yet another big-ticket program.

If we're going to spend some cash I'd be happy with some CH-47s and AH-64s over here.   Leave the blue-water/USMC dreams for others.


----------



## FSTO (25 Jun 2006)

If we were to force our way ashore against prepared positions then yes we would need organic carrier based air support. But if you read the Draft SCTF Concept of Operations (its available at the CMS web site on the DIN), Page 8/21 Para 13 states: "While capable of participating in a MCO (Major Combat Operations), the SCTF is optimized for the centre of the spctrum of conflict (Peacetime Military Engagement - Peace Support - Major Combat Operations).


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jun 2006)

What kind of timelines are we looking at here?  Isn't SCTF a near term proposition broadly based on what is on hand or readily available?  That pretty much puts a damper on any kind of "carrier" with fixed wing support - CH47s are doable.  Maybe AH64s or ARHs are doable as well.    

On the other hand CF-18 replacement isn't due until something like 2020-2025. 

Suppose we assume some sort of BHS with a flat deck is going to show up someplace between now and then, capable of carrying CH47s and AH64s, how much more of a stretch would it be, assuming the F35 were purchased, to purchase something like 20 to 25% of the fleet as STOVL -Bs?

Nobody's going to invade anybody with 4 to 6 jets. On the other hand isn't that the level of air support that is being utilised for current ops?  

2Bravo - who's getting better use out there?  The RAF's Harriers or the AH64s?  How about the Euros with their F16s? Are they getting any work?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill,

With regards to your question, I'd offer up the A-10 as the gold standard when it comes to resolving conflict.  That being said, the Harriers are doing excellent work.  The Dutch F16s are up north right now (ISAF).  With JDAMs etc bombs can be dropped accurately by virtually any plane in support of troops on the ground.  B52s do CAS (in a matter of speaking).  

AHs are also great enablers, although the enemy can try to shoot back.  I like having both around (AHs and CAS). 

If we were going to do this it would have to be something like the Invincible.

FTSO,

If we are sending troops somewhere where they will not be opposed then lets just fly them in and use commercial shipping for the kit.  

I'm not talking about storming Juno Beach here, but the middle of the FSO can get pretty hairy and relying on Seakings with door gunners for airsupport is not my idea of a good time.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jun 2006)

> but the middle of the FSO can get pretty hairy and relying on Seakings with door gunners for airsupport is not my idea of a good time.



Nor mine...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Jun 2006)

Don't forget many nations have an amphib capability with no fixed wing support of any sort and they seem to be managing just fine with out it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jun 2006)

An amazing thread fit for the fantasy forum. Canada cannot afford an aircraft carrier. A USN carrier battle group is a very expensive proposition not only to build but to keep at sea. A modern US carrier now costs in the area of $5 billion plus the cost of the 85 ac on board. The money would be better spent modernizing the CF land,sea and air forces.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Jun 2006)

Agreed Toma....


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jun 2006)

Also agreed Tomahawk6 -

But there is a difference between a CVN battle group purchased now - an impossibility - and landing 6x F35-Bs on something like the LHA Tarawa or Invincible/Ocean/Principe de Asturias/BPE  or some other BHS capable of landing CH-47s, in 2025.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Jun 2006)

Do we want to put in the extra cost of making a flight deck VSTOL aircraft capable and in esence make it even less likely we will be able to field an LPD/LHA due to said added costs?


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jun 2006)

Why not?  "We" put troop vehicle tranport into the AORs and made it less likely that they would be acquired.  "We" also put ice-resistance specs into the JSS increasing the cost.  "We" IIRC also put LCAC and V22 compatibility into the specs, increasing the cost as well.

I could also add that Canadian Frigates and Destroyers were also "upgraded" to handle Medium helicopters when everybody else was only flying Utilities like the Lynx and the Sea Sprite.  The question is what is the marginal cost to add capabilities to planned assets.

HMS Ocean was built on a 1993 fixed price contract of 143.9 MUKP, about 300 MCAD in 1993 dollars.  Perhaps 500 MCAD now.  F35s, support and crews are under consideration now.  This would be just another basing option if the F35s were selected to replace the CF-18s.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ocean.htm


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Jun 2006)

Fantasizing about carrier battlegroups is harmless.  Contemplating the projection of maritime power without them is dangerous.

In the meantime just get the CH47s and AH64s so we can win the war we are in.

2B


----------



## FSTO (25 Jun 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> Fantasizing about carrier battlegroups is harmless.  Contemplating the projection of maritime power without them is dangerous.
> 
> In the meantime just get the CH47s and AH64s so we can win the war we are in.
> 
> 2B


didn't you say you were going to get back in the sandbox ? BTW, as noted above lots of Navys do quite well without a CVN. And I might add you guys in the dirt are getting things done without any organic air support at all.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jun 2006)

Small carriers lack the ability to do much more than provide air support for a convoy. Even the French carriers are very limited compared to a Nimitz class or even the old Midway class.

http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway/specifications.html


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Jun 2006)

The teacher wasn't looking, so I jumped back in the pool.

Do these other Navies project maritime power in the way that the SCTF seems to want to?  I'm quite happy for our Navy to continue doing the things it does very well (which is kind of sea-lane denial when you think about it these days).

Going back to the sandbox, we are sitting on an airfield (which, when you look at the perimeter map looks suspiciously like a giant aircraft carrier).  I'm not sure why our own jets aren't here, but I suspect that we could indeed base them in Afghanistan if we wanted to.  The battles for the southern parts of Afghanistan were initially supported by USN planes operating off carriers.

Perhaps were are contemplating an SCTF that accompanies a USN carrier group?


----------



## baboon6 (26 Jun 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Small carriers lack the ability to do much more than provide air support for a convoy. Even the French carriers are very limited compared to a Nimitz class or even the old Midway class.
> 
> http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway/specifications.html



Like in the Falklands War... the Invincibles were indeed designed as convoy ecorts but managed to do alot more. Small carriers are obviously less capable, but they are better than nothing. 

My opinion? Canada should get a Dutch/Spanish type LPD (or two) and be done with it. As has been said many times they are not going to go to war alone. Affordable and realistic.


----------

