# F-35 and Canadian Navy



## munky99999 (4 Jun 2006)

At the moment we don’t have a carrier. Pretty understandable as we don’t have the funds (billions) to purchase a carrier which could operate the planes which we have. (CF-18) In the future when our cf-18s get decommissioned and replaced with the f-35 we won’t require a steam catapult; the airplanes could simply use the VTOL to get into the air. So instead of a carrier like the Nimitz class we could operate and use an amphibious assault carrier.
As for the facts: I don’t know for sure. I’m pretty sure we are replacing the CF-18s with the f-35. I’m assuming we will be able to either rig up the f-35s with the different setups. CTOL-SCTOL-VTOL or buy them in the amount wanted.

And as far as I can tell Nimitz class carriers are around 4 billion$ each. While ship classes like the USS ESSEX are much less.

My question is: Is it feasible?


----------



## Da_man (4 Jun 2006)

I believe more crew is required on a Nimitz class than there is in the entire canadian navy...  As for the F-35 Canada funded a small part of the project, but i dont think there are any official intentions of buying.


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Jun 2006)

You're talking about the Wasp Class LHD USS Essex, and not the Essex Class CVs that were build in 1942, right?


----------



## munky99999 (4 Jun 2006)

> I believe more crew is required on a Nimitz class than there is in the entire Canadian navy...  As for the F-35 Canada funded a small part of the project, but i don't think there are any official intentions of buying.


http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_images/gallery/gallery_images/large/HS2002-10188-061.jpg
We used to have a carrier(Bonaventure)... decommissioned in 1970
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_images/gallery/gallery_images/large/hs20017025-005_L.jpg
Picture of an American ship I'm suggesting we might be interested in.


> You're talking about the Wasp Class LHD USS Essex, and not the Essex Class CVs that were build in 1942, right?


Indeed. I'm not suggesting for sure a wasp class though.


----------



## munky99999 (4 Jun 2006)

I missed the f-35 official position statement. While I suppose you’re correct, I’m not sure about it. There are a lot of threads going around about JSF being the replacement for the cf-18.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39211.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22809.0.html
Big one.^^^
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39415.0.html
Sorta-official

Personally my opinion would be JSF over all the other suggested multi-role planes. Though the F-22x would be better but to expensive.

I would LOVE to see a Canadian designed plane taken from the A-10 warthog design, but designed to be more multi-role and stealth-like.

I would also LOVE to see our own AWAC planes which could be launched VTOL or at least SCTOL which would allow these AWAC planes to assist the f-35 planes on the amphibious assault carrier.


----------



## Armymatters (4 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> I would also LOVE to see our own AWAC planes which could be launched VTOL or at least SCTOL which would allow these AWAC planes to assist the f-35 planes on the amphibious assault carrier.



A few navies use helicopters as a AWAC platform for their carriers. The Russians and the Indians use the Kamov Ka-31 Helix, the Royal Navy and their Sea King AEW helos come to mind as solutions. The RN is however looking to replace their Sea King AEW's with either a EH-101 Merlin derivative or a V-22 Osprey derived AEW system.


----------



## Navy_Blue (5 Jun 2006)

Can't see us getting VTOL F-35.  Normal F-35's yes but not VTOL even if we did we have allot on our plate without looking for a small carrier.   Personally I would like an Enforcer Class Ship the Dutch are building OR the small Carriers the French just built.  Very cool and could even fit our BHS plans.  Could fly limited F-35 sorties from them both as well.


----------



## Armymatters (6 Jun 2006)

Couple of other solutions other than Enforcer and San Antonio that are around the same size:
France's Nouveaux Transports de Chalands de Débarquement (NTCD)





http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mistral.htm
Technical description:


> With a tonnage of about 20,000 tons with full load, the NTCD will have a maximum speed of 19 knots and will have a crew with 160 men. They will be able to embark 450 men and 60 vehicles. They will be equipped with a continuous flight deck with 6 spots for NH90 and Tiger helicopters, and with a capacity to store 10 to 16 helicopters in a hangar. The will be able to embark 4 barges of unloading or 2 machines on American air cushions. The choice carried out is coherent with the national concept of the operations amphibians which gives the priority to the aeromobility of the troops transported thanks to helicopters. Vertical takeoff aircraft do not enter this concept. At the time of an amphibian operation, aerial cover and fire support are ensured by the planes embarked aboard an aircraft carrier. In the event of absence of the "Charles of Gaulle" this support would be provided, within the framework of a European operation, by allied aircraft carriers. A significant effort is in particular made on the transmission resources and the command and information systems for the needs for a interarmées PC of theatre and interallied of 150 workstations installed on board, extensible by addition of modules (shelters), supporting interworking with French allies.
> 
> Significant evolution has occurred compared to the TCD Siroco. The installations of setting the amphibious machines, the helicopters and the vehicles consist of a covered foundation raft immergeable, of a hangar for vehicles, a hangar for helicopters and two lifting platforms. The various hangars are served by one or two lifting platforms (1 for the hangar vehicles, 2 for the hangar helicopters). The access of the vehicles is carried out by a side carry-slope and a carry-slope foundation raft. The organization of the whole of the platform was the subject of studies where the architectural choices privilege the optimization of flows (vehicles, helicopters, personnel, casualties, food and ammunition) and take account of the needs increased for interworking (US hovercrafts LCAC, allied helicopters of which Super Stallion, convertible aircraft - with swinging rotors - V22 Osprey).
> 
> The versatility offered by the design allows the use of the building in various versions according to missions: mixed version (450 passengers / 60 vehicles / 6 helicopters), version building helicopter carrier (possible carrying to 16 helicopters), version transport (more than 230 vehicles), version building of command. The system of combat with which will be equipped the NTCD will make it possible to provide the functions of control of the operations, self-defence, command, internal and external communications to the building, and the functions transverse: navigation, network of the wind. The telecommunications part will be particularly developed, taking into account the requirements in a number of simultaneous connections and in flow imposed by the missions of command (PC NOE, PC ATF/LF (1)). This system will integrate a whole of capacities HF, VHF, UHF, SHF and the tactical data links, and will offer communications interior and external with services with strong added value (phone, data, images).



South Korea's LP-X Dokdo (Landing Platform eXperimental) Amphibious Ship




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


> Being 200 meters long, 31 meters wide and displacing 14,000 tons [18,000 fully loaded], the ship will carry 700 troops, 10 CH-60 helicopters, seven amphibious vehicles, six tanks and two small landing boats. The ships can be used in a wide range of activities, including UN peacekeeping operations and disaster relief. For this reason, the LP-X is expected to usher in a new era of expanded Korean naval prowess, since it can be used for relief, transport, and other peacetime activities.
> 
> With a light displacement of 14,000 tons the LP-X is not only be the largest vessel in the Korean Navy but also substantially larger than the similar Osumi-class landing ship (8,900 tons) of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, and with a larger payload capacity as well, making it the regions largest of its kind. Previously, the largest ship in the Korean Navy was the 9,000-ton support vessel Cheonji.
> 
> ...



Japan's Osumi Class LST




http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/osumi.htm
Technical description:


> he 584-foot Oosumi has a long, uncluttered vehicle parking deck topside that is surmounted by a blocky "island" superstructure offset somewhat to starboard, giving an appearance suggesting to some that she is somehow intended to be employed in the future as an aircraft carrier. The JMSDF, however, insists that the ship can handle only a pair of CH-47 Chinook helicopters and two SH-60J patrol helicopters. The small elevator forward is used to bring vehicles to and from the flight deck, rather than to stow aircraft below deck.
> 
> The design boasts an immense upper deck, with an overall length of 160m, breadth of 25.8m and houses a vehicle loading space on the front and a helicopter landing deck on the rear. The front of her hull supports a 100m long vehicle deck. In combination with the upper deck, the loading of between ten and twenty tanks and about forty large scale vehicles is possible.
> 
> ...


----------



## munky99999 (6 Jun 2006)

The French small carrier would definitely be a good option but I am still not suggesting it matters. As for if we will buy VTOL f-35 planes? How could be possibly conclude that when we can’t even officially conclude we will purchase the f-35 to begin with.

Take the French carrier, then outfit some sea kings or cyclones that we already have and do as the British are doing with their AWACS helis, and then have VTOL f-35s working off them also. It would be so great.

Alternatively an AWACS on an Osprey plane or something very similar would be great.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jun 2006)

It would take many, many years to cycle the Navy up to get back into supporting fixed wing operations from a heaving deck, whether or not VTOL.  I seriously question whether it would be worth the effort (and the crew discomfort*) when considered in the context of all the other Naval priorities that must first be addressed.   Operating a few large rotary wing aircraft from a vessel with a 300-400 foot flight deck is one thing, but making the leap to VTOL is quite another. The air force crew component for a single such ship would be huge.  You also have to be able to support the ship underway, and screen and defend it from attack.  A billion dollar project becomes a 5 billion dollar project, without either 1 or 5 billion to spend. In any event, it's too expensive and far too unsavory from a political perspective, at least right now. 


* check out the crew accommodations, even on a modern carrier- the Navy already has a retention problem partly due to unresolved lifestyle issues aboardship. The air force  accommodations would be less than 4 star, so its a probably a no-go from the start on their end, except for Helo crews who are well conditioned, willing to take on some sea duties. 

Hell, I bet a large chunk of the Navy would take a pass once they figure out would be required of them. The stress and sea evolutions would be unbelievable and difficult to manage in the inevitable circumstances of an understrength crew for such a show boat ship.

Cheers


----------



## munky99999 (6 Jun 2006)

whiskey601, you make it sound like if they have the option they would deny it. On the other hand I look at the Americans navy pilots who indeed WANT to stay aboard the carriers. The movie Top Gun alone attests to this pretty much.


----------



## Inch (6 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> whiskey601, you make it sound like if they have the option they would deny it. On the other hand I look at the Americans navy pilots who indeed WANT to stay aboard the carriers. The movie Top Gun alone attests to this pretty much.



You're basing your opinion of what the USN pilots want on a 20 year old movie? Any idea how many ships you would require to protect your 3000-5000 man, $1+ Billion carrier?

We have manning problems, period. There's a reason the 4th 280 class destroyer is no longer in service, and that's only 240 or so sailors, let alone a carrier and it's air wing plus the rest of the ships in the carrier battle group.

Oh and FYI, the Brit Sea Kings are hardly AWACS, they were Airborne Early Warning aircraft, now designated as Airborne Surveillance and Area Control aircraft. They don't have air controllers on board like the AWACS, they have a crew of 3 (1 pilot and 2 observers as they call them), all they basically do is expand the radar horizon of the fleet via radar and datalink, they certainly don't control air assets like the AWACS or Hawkeyes do.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Jun 2006)

Carriers have been discussed before munky....


----------



## Navy_Blue (6 Jun 2006)

Tell me he didn't use Top Gun  as an example of pilots liking to sail :


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> whiskey601, you make it sound like if they have the option they would deny it. .



If someone was giving brand new aircraft carriers away, they should take it, sell it and use the money to fix a few of the other problems in the Navy before going down the path of an aircraft carrier.


----------



## karl28 (7 Jun 2006)

I'm not a military expert but the idea of a carrier seems just to unrealistic what the Navy should concentrate on is more frigates and more modern submarines and maybe if we are lucky a couple of small amphibious assault ships .  A larger more capable submarine force can be just as dangerous as one carrier group at I would think so but like I stated above I am not an expert and I am way out of my lane on this but it makes more sense to concentrate on assault ships / frigates/ and subs but I really do not know a whole lot about the Navy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Jun 2006)

Well said karl28, add to your suggestion of an up to date command platform with AAD and an AOR and we are in business.


----------



## karl28 (7 Jun 2006)

Ex-Dragoon    just a couple of quick questions for you .  I think AAD is anti aircraft capabilities but what does AOR mean thanks ?


----------



## Inch (7 Jun 2006)

AORs are tankers for refueling ships at sea.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Jun 2006)

> Tell me he didn't use Top Gun  as an example of pilots liking to sail



Actually, I thought Top Gun was an excellent documentary on the mating practices of US Navy aviators...


----------



## karl28 (8 Jun 2006)

Inch  thanks for the heads up like I stated in the above I am out of my lane on this topic but the Navy is something that I always find interesting


----------



## NCRCrow (8 Jun 2006)

35 year old destroyers...40 year old sea kings............................

training cycles, procurement, bidding......another 20 years

I thought I saw a Cyclone the other day.....LOL


----------



## munky99999 (8 Jun 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Actually, I thought Top Gun was an excellent documentary on the mating practices of US Navy aviators...


Well still. Even if top gun is outdated, the USA still has what 10 Nimitz carriers around. and about. 2500 air-wing each therefore as of TODAY, there is A LOT of people still choosing to stay on the carriers and run the aircraft systems and etc. If the life style is so bad, I’m guessing there are people around who are silly enough to do it. Also carriers must be worth the money to run once purchased and manned. Hell I’m not aware of what that French amphibious carrier uses as fuel. But Canada is known for nuclear power. Nice CANDU reactor would be pretty good.


----------



## Inch (8 Jun 2006)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> I thought I saw a Cyclone the other day.....LOL



BS!  ;D



			
				munky99999 said:
			
		

> Well still. Even if top gun is outdated, the USA still has what 10 Nimitz carriers around. and about. 2500 air-wing each therefore as of TODAY, there is A LOT of people still choosing to stay on the carriers and run the aircraft systems and etc. If the life style is so bad, Im guessing there are people around who are silly enough to do it. Also carriers must be worth the money to run once purchased and manned. Hell Im not aware of what that French amphibious carrier uses as fuel. But Canada is known for nuclear power. Nice CANDU reactor would be pretty good.



Oh, I get it, we're playing the numbers game. Well compare the 3200 that sail the ship for the air wing. I guess being a sailor is better than being an aviator, let alone the other hundred+ ships the USN has. There's almost 6 times the number of enlisted members as compared to officers in the USN and all USN pilots are officers, so I guess being enlisted is a better lifestyle.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Jun 2006)

Still the question that begs an answer is where are you going to get 
a) the money for a major capital investment for a carrier,
b) the capital for the airwing, 
c) the aviators for said airwing, 
d) how are you going to train the crew for carrier operations,
e) where are you going to get the crew for the carrier,
f) what ships are you going to use for her escort, 
g) will they be permanently tied to the carrier 
h) which coast are you going to put the carrier 
i) are you going to have to cannibalize the other coast to provide escorts for the carrier 
j) and most importantly, why does Canada need a carrier at this time?


----------



## FSTO (8 Jun 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Still the question that begs an answer is where are you going to get
> a) the money for a major capital investment for a carrier,
> b) the capital for the airwing,
> c) the aviators for said airwing,
> ...



Alright, I don't think that anyone here is advocating that we procure a Nimitz class carrier. This is the same dis-information that the Liberals used in the 04 election. What I think the originator of this thread was proposing that if we decide to get the amphib that Gen Hillier is talking about, would it be feasible to put F-35 STVOL fighters on here if the ship had a complete full length flight-deck vice one located on the stern.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Jun 2006)

It was more directed at munky, I wa skinda curious to see what his/her response would after the top gun comment 

 >

on a serious note, i do find myself wondering why exactly does Canada need a carrier?  I've read the arguments for the BHS and i've been convinced, but I got the impression from the previous comments, specifically from Munky that we were talking about more than a BHS.... 

Also i'm wondering, if we ever did field a BHS, what would it do the rest of the fleet?  wouldn't most of the ships be allocated to their escort groups?  Would they be available for other missions?  These questions may sound stupid, but remember I'm just another dumb civie


----------



## FSTO (8 Jun 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> It was more directed at munky, I wa skinda curious to see what his/her response would after the top gun comment
> 
> >
> 
> ...


----------



## Sheerin (8 Jun 2006)

hmm, colour me embarrassed for typing something that stupid lol (take note this is what happens when you don't drink enough coffee!!) 

But is it safe to assume that our allies will always be there to assist with escort duties?  Would other national security interests be compromised if we used most of the fleet for escort duties?  And along those lines, what would be the minimum number of escorts needed for a LPD or LPH?  Would a fleet of 15 major warships be enough to protect the BHS?


----------



## munky99999 (8 Jun 2006)

> Oh, I get it, we're playing the numbers game. Well compare the 3200 that sail the ship for the air wing. I guess being a sailor is better than being an aviator, let alone the other hundred+ ships the USN has. There's almost 6 times the number of enlisted members as compared to officers in the USN and all USN pilots are officers, so I guess being enlisted is a better lifestyle.


Where did i state that the amount of naval pilots make any difference? I’m simply stating that there MUST be at least a handful of those naval aviators who LIKE their life on the carrier. That alone defeats the original argument that pilots don’t want to live on a carrier and prefer their 4star hotels.



> which coast are you going to put the carrier
> and most importantly, why does Canada need a carrier at this time?


These really are the only 2 valid arguements. Which coast? who knows? I’m not suggesting a carrier for coast guard duty. As for why does Canada need a carrier? Why does anyone need a carrier? Why does anyone need any military?



> Alright, I don't think that anyone here is advocating that we procure a Nimitz class carrier. This is the same dis-information that the Liberals used in the 04 election. What I think the originator of this thread was proposing that if we decide to get the amphib that Gen Hillier is talking about, would it be feasible to put F-35 STVOL fighters on here if the ship had a complete full length flight-deck vice one located on the stern.


Well I don’t know anything about the liberals and the election. But I’m suggesting a very cheap small amphibious carrier with helicopters and vertical take-off f-35b planes. The f-35 planes we will likely be buying anyway, helicopters we have, and the carrier is really the only thing you need to invest in. As for personnel, I’m betting it could be done.Hell, one might argue that purchasing a carrier might indeed be something that would have people looking to recruit to serve on the carrier or just the news of purchasing a carrier might be a good advertising thing to get people to recruit. An amphibious carrier would hold every kind of forces. Navy obviously, army for the amphibious part, and air for the planes and helicopters.



> I've read the arguments for the BHS and i've been convinced, but I got the impression from the previous comments, specifically from Munky that we were talking about more than a BHS....
> Also i'm wondering, if we ever did field a BHS, what would it do the rest of the fleet?  wouldn't most of the ships be allocated to their escort groups?  Would they be available for other missions?


I was thinking more of a small carrier with no launching ability. Much like what Army matters post in the first page. I don’t really know what BHS is. As for who will escort it??? We often are found escorting American Nimitz class carriers and back in the 1960s we had a carrier of our own which we ran well enough. Your arguments are simply saying that we just cant run a carrier, but the difference is that we have already.



> But is it safe to assume that our allies will always be there to assist with escort duties?  Would other national security interests be compromised if we used most of the fleet for escort duties?  And along those lines, what would be the minimum number of escorts needed for a LPD or LPH?  Would a fleet of 15 major warships be enough to protect the BHS?


Well as far as I can tell. A carrier is usually escorted by 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 1 frigate, 1 sub, and supply. Now I’m told that this battle group is usually way more than a carrier needs. Just the F-35b planes would do devastating damage to any threat coming towards a carrier even beyond that, the carrier usually has phalanx guns and seasparrow launchers. The only thing you really need to cover is sub attacks and such. So 1 frigate, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer would be enough. Which wouldn’t hurt our navy as much as you suggest.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Jun 2006)

So now you are suggesting we get crusiers as well?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (8 Jun 2006)

Here's how I see it....

If we're going to buy an LPD, why not buy an LHD that can carry a significant number of CH-47's.

If we're going to buy an LHD that can carry a significant number of CH-47's, why not ensure it has the capability to deploy F-35B's should we decide to add that operational capability down the road.

Bottom Line:  Build the ability to upgrade into the original design so in 10-years we aren't kicking ourselves saying "if only...." (as with the current CPF's inability to now upgrade to APAR).


Matthew.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Jun 2006)

Matthew: as the Brits have also raised the bar of requirements to replace the Invincible class, they are ending up with drawings and no replacement ships. They ought to do their proof of concept, pick a practical design and quickly get on with it or it will never happen. The economy is going to eventually go into the crap-tank, and with that the defence budget for capital equipment will be a floater.


----------



## munky99999 (8 Jun 2006)

> So now you are suggesting we get crusiers as well?


No. Though I’d love to see a Canadian contractor design a new BB, a modern BB would be insane. 20-35 inch guns, sea sparrows, phalanx, etc wowzers. Nuclear powerplant. Canada could never build nor commission such a beast. USA could obviously.

One thing I’d really like to see happen is an air force airport built in southern Ontario. That way air cadets could have something closer to Windsor to go to. As far as I know. If air cadets in my area want to do anything other then a classroom they need to go for at least a 6 hour drive. Building an airport in this area would allow for air reserves in Windsor and air cadets. Plus obviously regular air force. Which could in turn create more recruiting. YAaY


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> One thing I’d really like to see happen is an air force airport built in southern Ontario. That way air cadets could have something closer to Windsor to go to. As far as I know. If air cadets in my area want to do anything other then a classroom they need to go for at least a 6 hour drive. Building an airport in this area would allow for air reserves in Windsor and air cadets. Plus obviously regular air force. Which could in turn create more recruiting. YAaY



Um?  Isn't Trenton in Southern Ontario?


Good thing you don't live in Tuktyuktuk.


----------



## Inch (8 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> I was thinking more of a small carrier with no launching ability. Much like what Army matters post in the first page. I don’t really know what BHS is. As for who will escort it??? We often are found escorting American Nimitz class carriers and back in the 1960s we had a carrier of our own which we ran well enough. Your arguments are simply saying that we just cant run a carrier, but the difference is that we have already.



I hate to break it to you, but the world is a very different place than it was in the 60s. The navy is a shadow of what it used to be, in 1963 the RCN consisted of 1 Carrier (the Bonnie), 18 Destroyer Escorts, 8 Tribal Class Destroyers, 17 Frigates, 10 Minesweepers, 4 Submarines, 1 AOR, and 4 Sqns of aircraft. Now we have 3 Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 12 MCDVs, 3 Subs and 2 Sqns of Sea Kings.



			
				munky99999 said:
			
		

> Well as far as I can tell. A carrier is usually escorted by 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 1 frigate, 1 sub, and supply. Now I’m told that this battle group is usually way more than a carrier needs. Just the F-35b planes would do devastating damage to any threat coming towards a carrier even beyond that, the carrier usually has phalanx guns and seasparrow launchers. The only thing you really need to cover is sub attacks and such. So 1 frigate, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer would be enough. Which wouldn’t hurt our navy as much as you suggest.



Ah yes, because no air launched anti ship missile is ever launched outside the 6 or so mile range of the Sea Sparrow or the close in range of the Close-In Weapons System (CIWS aka Phalanx). Not to mention the over the horizon capability of sea launched weapons, ie Harpoon.



			
				munky99999 said:
			
		

> One thing I'd really like to see happen is an air force airport built in southern Ontario. That way air cadets could have something closer to Windsor to go to. As far as I know. If air cadets in my area want to do anything other then a classroom they need to go for at least a 6 hour drive. Building an airport in this area would allow for air reserves in Windsor and air cadets. Plus obviously regular air force. Which could in turn create more recruiting. YAaY



Now that's classic, establishing a Wing so that Air Cadets don't have as far to travel.  :


----------



## karl28 (9 Jun 2006)

Um?  Isn't Trenton in Southern Ontario?     

I know your just having fun with the above quesion with that last statement but to add some sarcasm it even host a large air cadet camp here every summer lol   But I guess that must be so difficult for munky99999  to travel to once a year LOL  ;D


----------



## Sheerin (9 Jun 2006)

> Though I’d love to see a Canadian contractor design a new BB, a modern BB would be insane. 20-35 inch guns, sea sparrows, phalanx, etc wowzers. Nuclear powerplant.



Again, why would Canada need a BB?  
Lets give you a scenario, you've become the MND (though whatever post you get will probably be becuase of nepotism) how are you going to explain to a) the cabinet, b) the house of commons and c) the public at large the reasons for you spending how many untold billions on a battleship (presumably fleet as having just one doesn't make that much sense) and a fleet of carriers (again one doesn't make that much sense either) and of course the escorts to go along with it?  Oh and along those lines how would you explain it to the rest of the members of the CF who presumably just got pink slips becuase you are unable to pay their salaries becuase of the money that is being dumped into the navy.

I also don't buy your argument that becuase the Canadian navy did something in the 60s that they're able to do as well today.  As Inch pointed out the navy its self is dramatically different now than it was then, as is, presumably, the threats that face capital warships like carriers and BBs that you seem to want.  Also, are there any saliors currently serving in the navy who were around when the Bonnie was last in service?  Even if they are it doesn't mean the skillset is still there.  Same goes for the aviators.  

And BHS is short for Big Honking Ship... rick hillier used this term while discussing a new class of ship he'd like to see the navy have, like an LPH.


----------



## Armymatters (9 Jun 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Here's how I see it....
> 
> If we're going to buy an LPD, why not buy an LHD that can carry a significant number of CH-47's.
> 
> ...



We are going to be talking about a BIG ship if it has to carry and operate a significant number of Chinook's... most ships of the LHD size can only operate a handful, as simply put it, a Chinook is not designed for shipboard operations (lacks folding rotor blades). I read  about the story of a Chinook named Bravo November that was sent in 1982 to fight in the Falklands War. The story mentioned how the Chinook was not designed for shipboard stowage, as to get the Chinooks to fit on the ship for stowage, they were forced to take off the rotor blades, and when it was time to get the Chinook's ready, they had to re-attach the rotor blades using a forklift, on a pitching, heaving deck, and that they were extremely lucky that they were to get the rotor blades on without having someone's fingers cut off because he was guiding the rotor blades in, and was preparing to drop the securing bolt in.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2006)

: a battleship now? Please....what next a dreadnought?? How about a seaplane carrier for good measure.


----------



## Jantor (9 Jun 2006)

How about a 39,000 ton "Polar 8" icebreaker with 16" guns. That'll learn em!  >


----------



## munky99999 (9 Jun 2006)

> Um?  Isn't Trenton in Southern Ontario?


Well I’m in Windsor, to drive to Toronto its 4 hours, assuming your driving the speed limit. To get to Trenton is 6 hours from Windsor. Same thing for MEadford-Borden 6 or more hours.


> But I guess that must be so difficult for munky99999  to travel to once a year LOL


Never been a cadet ever in my life. The base would also be for air reserves and regular force.



> Again, why would Canada need a BB?


you didnt read my post at all did you?


> *Nuclear powerplant. Canada could never build nor commission such a beast. USA could obviously.*





> Lets give you a scenario, you've become the MND (though whatever post you get will probably be becuase of nepotism)


So you don’t read my post and then insult me? Hell I’m 6’ 5” now that’s way to tall to ever be on any navy boat.



> a battleship now? Please....what next a dreadnought?? How about a seaplane carrier for good measure.


Another person not reading my post at all and then insulting me. I said I would love to see a BB DESIGNED not built. DESIGNED means the furthest you go is autocad not building at all. Right after that I said Canada could never build such a boat. I like the IOWA class, but its from WW2 with upgrades. They should start from scratch and design an entirely new BB.


----------



## Inch (9 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> Well I’m in Windsor, to drive to Toronto its 4 hours, assuming your driving the speed limit. To get to Trenton is 6 hours from Windsor. Same thing for MEadford-Borden 6 or more hours.Never been a cadet ever in my life. The base would also be for air reserves and regular force.



Ok, I'll now explain how it is in real life. We have enough problems with noise complaints in places like Moose Jaw, Cold Lake, Bagotville and Portage la Prairie, let alone putting jets or helos near a major city centre not to mention that Southern Ontario is home to the most congested airspace in all of Canada. Where are these Southern Ontario based jets/helos going to train? Over the built up areas that are all over the place there? Or transit an hour or two to somewhere they can train? At least in Halifax/Shearwater we can head out to sea to train, you don't really have that option in Southern Ontario and especially if you're travelling at 6-10 miles per minute like jets do.


----------



## Sheerin (9 Jun 2006)

> you didnt read my post at all did you?



I did.  And I was just questioning why Canada in your vision would need a BB.  You know, for reasons other than LCF (Look Cool Factor)



> So you don’t read my post and then insult me? Hell I’m 6’ 5” now that’s way to tall to ever be on any navy boat.



Congratulations on your stature.  



> Another person not reading my post at all and then insulting me. I said I would love to see a BB DESIGNED not built. DESIGNED means the furthest you go is autocad not building at all. Right after that I said Canada could never build such a boat. I like the IOWA class, but its from WW2 with upgrades. They should start from scratch and design an entirely new BB.



You say it would be nice to have one, but don't give any reason why.  Just about everyone who posts on this forum knows that Canada will never get one, let alone design one from scratch.  I'm personally just curious as to why you want us to get one, and what role it will fulfill.


----------



## FSTO (9 Jun 2006)

A BB for Canada? 

I know I can get one from Daisy, but I don't think it will have the range or hitting power required for NGS. ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Jun 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Matthew: as the Brits have also raised the bar of requirements to replace the Invincible class, they are ending up with drawings and no replacement ships. They ought to do their proof of concept, pick a practical design and quickly get on with it or it will never happen. The economy is going to eventually go into the crap-tank, and with that the defence budget for capital equipment will be a floater.



I'm not saying customize something from scratch.....In fact, I agree with your premise that allocating funds now and getting construction underway ASAP should be the priority.  It's just that while they've got they're CAD/CAM design up on the screen (especially if we're talking about Schelde with their modular design construction), when they ask us to specify the sizes for hangar facilities and elevators that we provide measurements that allow for F-35B and/or CH-47 as opposed to "just enough space for a Cyclone".


Matthew.


----------



## FSTO (9 Jun 2006)

Since the Chinook isn't navalized (very important for storage and work in the sea environment) maybe we should be looking at the new Sea Stallion (CH-53 K). 
Just a thought.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2006)

> Another person not reading my post at all and then insulting me. I said I would love to see a BB DESIGNED not built. DESIGNED means the furthest you go is autocad not building at all. Right after that I said Canada could never build such a boat. I like the IOWA class, but its from WW2 with upgrades. They should start from scratch and design an entirely new BB.



Then what you are proposing is a waste of time and rescources something the CF does not need to be involved in when our navy has other priorties. :


----------



## munky99999 (9 Jun 2006)

> I did.  And I was just questioning why Canada in your vision would need a BB.  You know, for reasons other than LCF (Look Cool Factor)


In my post I even SAID Canada cant build such a beast; NOR commission. SOOOOO I have already stated that CANADA DOES NOT NEED a BB.



> At least in Halifax/Shearwater we can head out to sea to train, you don't really have that option in Southern Ontario and especially if you're travelling at 6-10 miles per minute like jets do.


I was under the impression that the military doesn't have to worry about such problems. Moreover, IF you put it roughly 1 hour away from Windsor there are alot of large farms. Hell I live near the airport in Windsor and I can never hear planes even with the big airbus and hercules sized planes are huge.



> Then what you are proposing is a waste of time and rescources something the CF does not need to be involved in when our navy has other priorties.


Well I never said the CF have any involvment in designing a BB.


----------



## Inch (9 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that the military doesn't have to worry about such problems. Moreover, IF you put it roughly 1 hour away from Windsor there are alot of large farms. Hell I live near the airport in Windsor and I can never hear planes even with the big airbus and hercules sized planes are huge.



Nope, you were wrong, we have to worry about it more so than any other operator due to the low levels that we routinely fly at. Ever had a Hornet fly 100 ft over you at 600 knots? It's quite loud, it vibrates your clothes and hair when it flys over you. Also, jets need somewhere to drop bombs, I'm pretty sure the farmers in Southern Ontario would be quite averse to having their soy beans bombed to oblivion. We have an air weapons range in Cold Lake so why would we move jets to Southern Ontario? Even if you want to pull the "intercept" card, like I said, at 10 miles per minute, Trenton works just fine to defend the Southern Ontario skies if need be.  Hercs travel great distances, Windsor to Trenton isn't a great distance so they're fine where they are. Same goes for the Airbuses. Helos already are at almost every Wing plus the 3 major army bases. SAR is based where they're needed, IE the coasts and Trenton. 

So, I see no real need to establish an air base in Southern Ontario, period.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2006)

Well considering this topic was about the Cdn Navy and the F35 , why even bring it up?


----------



## Sheerin (9 Jun 2006)

> In my post I even SAID Canada cant build such a beast; NOR commission. SOOOOO I have already stated that CANADA DOES NOT NEED a BB.



So why even bring it up?  

As for this thread, I think its dead.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2006)

As long as there are no more needless posts on warships that will never be built again....I think we can keep it open.


----------



## Sheerin (9 Jun 2006)

Fair enough...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2006)

Reopened based upon a couple of request, if it strays off topic again it will be locked again and remained locked.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (29 Jun 2006)

The main reason for carriers of any size is generally projection of power.  Canada has nowhere and no need to project such power, so why would we build them?  As for the use of an amphibious assault ship, WWII was the last time we conducted such an operation.  I use the argument constantly that we need to maintain levels of knowledge (such as amphibious landing), but at this point there are greater priorities.  Especially when our primary focus is a landlocked nation (Afghanistan).

I don't know much about the navy, but I can estimate that the resources in terms of personnel, maintenance and training to get to a proficient level for even one ship of this nature is astounding.  We're not even getting a new maritime service helo to replace the Sea King until Nov. of 2008.  I would love to see us have these capabilities, but right now we're fighting to keep what we already have running.  Too much dreaming, not enough reality.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jun 2006)

Considering the worlds navies are starting to focus on littoral operations it only makes sense we look at gaining an amphib capability.


----------



## Loachman (1 Jul 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that the military doesn't have to worry about such problems. Moreover, IF you put it roughly 1 hour away from Windsor there are alot of large farms. Hell I live near the airport in Windsor and I can never hear planes even with the big airbus and hercules sized planes are huge.


One of many reasons that 400 Squadron moved from Downsview to Borden was because of the increasing urbanization and resultant noise complaints around Downsview. Yes, we DO have to worry about such problems - we exist to serve the public, not keep them awake - even those stupid enough to buy houses adjacent to an active airfield. Modern airliners are designed to be quiet. Military aircraft, especially fighters and helicopters, are not.

Also, farm country is far from ideal for flying training areas. The minimum legal tactical altitude for the CH146 is fifteen feet above obstacles. One can spook a lot of cows and horses whipping around at 60-100 knots at that altitude for a couple of hours. Aside from irritating farmers (YOU might not hear aircraft very well, but every last one of them does), Her Royal Majesty gets to reimburse them for any injured, lost, or dead animals and ruined fences and that neither amuses her nor her sundry agents, Squadron COs included. I was the guy that got to deal with some of those farmers and such in a couple of positions that I've held and it's not a trivial matter. That's another reason that 400 Squadron moved - Borden puts it a lot closer to the Muskoka region, where there are way fewer cows and horses.

Whenever something is done or not done in the CF, it's usually done or not done for very good reasons (political interference aside), and a lot of very smart and highly experienced people have put a considerable amount of time and effort into weighing all of the pertinent factors before arriving at a decision.

There are no valid or logical reasons (entertaining one town's Air Cadets is neither) for building an airbase near Windsor and many, many solid reasons for not.


----------



## Spencer100 (1 Jul 2006)

Did we not enter East Timor by the Sea?  Using Ozzy (aussy) transport?  A small flat deck would a nice addition to the Canadian Forces.  Vote Conservative and you may just see it!


----------



## munky99999 (7 Jul 2006)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Did we not enter East Timor by the Sea?  Using Ozzy (aussy) transport?  A small flat deck would a nice addition to the Canadian Forces.  Vote Conservative and you may just see it!


You posted this July 1st, 2006. How long until the next election? HeH.

You are right though. As for the original idea; I’ve been thinking about it and I am coming to the opinion that we don’t have all the man power to fill all the job placements required for an amphibious assault. In fact I agree the purchase of those supply ships; it indeed helps out the current naval situation greatly.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (7 Jul 2006)

With the purchase of new supply ships, and the desperate need for a replacement for the 280 class destroyers there is no room for grand ideas of a carrier of any type at this time.  While I would love to see us have the capability and more, we have to realise what we are and are not in a position to do.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Jul 2006)

I think people should be ecstatic we are talking about a possible LPD/LHA and not get greedy which seems to be the case.


----------



## Bert (7 Jul 2006)

Some pics of the F-35.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/07/06/Navigation/177/207678/Pictures+Exclusive+first+photos+of+Lockheed+Martin+F-35+JSF+ahead+of+official.html


----------



## medaid (25 Sep 2006)

I remember talking to one of the navy guys working @ the PNE at Op Connection with me   I was surprised to learn that it indeed does take close to the entire 'SEA' going Navy and more to operate an Air Craft Carrier  : interesting things you learn from the Navy


----------



## thunderchild (12 Jan 2009)

Spain and Australia are building a ship that may be what we are looking for, it is a LHA about 1.5 billion CAN. Here are the specs,
Length 230.8m
Beam 32.0m
prop to flight deck 27.5m
full load displacement 27,079t
powerplant Gas turbines electrical (pods)
speed max 21 kts empty, 19.5 kts full load
range 7000km at 16 kts, 9000km kts at 15 kts
crew 243
airwing 172
amphibious assult force 902 troops
multi function hangar/garage 6000 m squared capacity for 6000 tons cargo.
aircraft up to 30 mix types from 4 Ch-47 to F-35B
well for 1 LCAC or up to 4 LCM
With this ship we would get a prov en design, man power requirements are much lower then Comparable US LHA's and gives us the option to either have our allies use the ship as an aircraft carrier or allow us time to build up a working squadron when we can afford it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jan 2009)

I think we need to work on replacing our tankers, AAD destroyers, getting our CPFs updated and fixing our Victoria class before we can even consider looking at the above....


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think we need to work on replacing our tankers, AAD destroyers, getting our CPFs updated and fixing our Victoria class before we can even consider looking at the above....



Ex-D:  Do you have that one on a loop yet?  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jan 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ex-D:  Do you have that one on a loop yet?  ;D



I think we all do and that it will coe in handy now that TC has decided to move to the "2 years old or more" threads.


----------



## karl28 (13 Jan 2009)

TC  its a nice thought but it will never happen .  IT will probably take the Canadian Government something in the figure of 10-15 years ( I am guessing at this as I am just a civy please feel free to correct me if I am wrong ) before they replace the Destroyers and Supply ships .   I would think its safe to suggest anything else would be a pipe dream at best  .


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2009)

Hopefully the tankers within 5 years and the 280s shortly thereafter.


----------



## karl28 (13 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon  

              It would be nice to see ships sooner rather than later,  but considering how long it took to replace the Sea Kings and Subs I am not going to hold my breath .


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2009)

karl28 said:
			
		

> but considering how long it took to replace the Sea Kings



How long it took ?

Sea King hasnt been replaced yet.....just in case you havent been following events with the program, we are still far from having new helos.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2009)

karl28 said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon
> 
> It would be nice to see ships sooner rather than later,  but considering how long it took to replace the Sea Kings and Subs I am not going to hold my breath .



And the subs aren't really replaced in reality because we have 3 down and one actually sailing. None are mission operational so to speak.


----------



## belka (13 Jan 2009)

Where are these threads coming from? lol

Short answer to F-35 and the Canadian Navy: No, will never happen.

/thread.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2009)

belka said:
			
		

> [/thread]



Well, it had died on September 25th, 2006 at 01:44:43  but somebody....... :


----------



## karl28 (13 Jan 2009)

Wasn't me I had nothing to do with it completely innocent .    CDN Aviator and Ex Dragon you guys are right  the subs and sea kings are not replaced yet but I would hope to say that they are closer to being replaced than the supply ships and destroyers .  Where are those darn easy buttons when you need one


----------

