# Save Money and Get a Big Ship



## Halifax Tar

So I read this article in Esprit Des Corps:

http://curtisreports.blogspot.ca/2016/05/save-money-and-get-big-ship.html

I find it very interesting.  It is something I have been bringing up in conversations in C&POs when we chat about capability. 

Missiles are great and all but we really don't carry enough on CPFs to more than shoot and scoot home.  And I would imagine our stockpile isn't big enough sustain a conventional war.  This is why I believe that guns will be more important than most realize should we engage in a conventional surface war. 

I tend to agree that our RCN should be centered around 2 Capital ships that have large caliber primary guns and a selection of smaller guns and cruise missiles.  This tends to support my belief that the RCN should make itself the "preferred taxi service" of the Army.  Thus also incorporating 2 ships similar in capability to the Minstrels. 

This would let us move soldiers to a conflict/humanitarian zone, employ them effectively and support them with everything from naval gunfire to medical support.  

Of course this is all just a pipe dream.  But could be an interesting discussion. 

So my optimal combatant fleet composition for the RCN would be:

East Coast:

1 X Capital Ship (Big Gun, Cruise Missiles)
1 X "Minstrel" Class Ship
2 X DDH 
4 X FFH 
4 X MCDV 
2 X AOPS
3 X SSN 
1 X AOR *

West Coast: 

1 X Capital Ship (Big Gun, Cruise Missiles)
1 X "Minstrel" Class Ship
2 X DDH 
4 X FFH 
4 X MCDV 
2 X AOPS 
3 X SSN 
1 X AOR *

* = As well 1 additional AOR would move between the coasts, as required, to cover off any refits or long out of operation periods by AORs. 

That is a 37 combatant ship Navy; and one that I believe is well balanced and hard hitting enough to be a solid middle power player.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That is one of the stupidest article I have read in a long time (not your post Halifax Tar, but Mr. Curtis' article).

Ajax, Achiles, Exeter and Graf Spee each faster and more powerful than current Canadian warships. Come on: A single HALIFAX sends all four of them to their doom in a single engagement, before any of them even has an inkling that HALIFAX is around. Long range surface radars and observation system on the Halifax will reveal what She is up against almost hours before any of these ships spots her. And then, they don't even have the means to know they have been detected. Finally, you just lob two Harpoons at each, which they have no way of stopping or even detecting and they are dead before they know anything happened.

And that is just a simple frigate taking on three battle cruisers and cruisers - capital ships of WWII, but insignificant ship's today.

If such capital ships were still useful, you can be sure that other, more important, navies would still have them. Even the Americans have concluded that their IOWA class battleship's are not worth the money they cost anymore.


----------



## jollyjacktar

A more modern  example would be what happened to the General Belgrano in the Falklands, an antique in modern day naval combat and I am sure made the USN a little nervous about their BB's.  But, OGBD, to be fair isn't the Rail Gun going to be a more up to date version of what the Capital ships of yore's rifles provided and why they're doing it?  I saw a video of where the Admiral from the project was describing how he can have hundreds and hundreds of projectiles in his magazines vs a combat load of comparable missiles.  Cheaper cost per shot, no worries of powder in the magazines and a very respectable reach and kinetic punch.  Ergo, going back to the possibility of NGS as in the past.

Have not read the article, but I am guessing he is a non-SME type just throwing it out there in sprit if not in a more educated reality basis of cold hard fact.


----------



## Gorgo

Agreed.  The gentleman wrote a pretty article, but the facts were wrong in several areas.  Much that I've often liked _EdC_ as a good way for the lower ranks to get a chance to vent on things, I honestly wish that a little more research was done.


----------



## GR66

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Missiles are great and all but we really don't carry enough on CPFs to more than shoot and scoot home.  And I would imagine our stockpile isn't big enough sustain a conventional war.  This is why I believe that guns will be more important than most realize should we engage in a conventional surface war.
> 
> ...



This may be true vs. an opponent that is equally limited in the number of missiles they have available.  More likely we'd run out of missiles before the enemy (Russians/Chinese) and be left facing their missiles with guns.  Like the proverbial "bringing a knife to a gun fight".

Not saying large caliber guns don't have a role...but should they be viewed as an alternative to missiles?


----------



## Loachman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> "Minstrel"



They would sail into battle with a great musical accompaniment...

Damned Autocorrect.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Loachman said:
			
		

> They would sail into battle with a great musical accompaniment...
> 
> Damned Autocorrect.



Yes of course, Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries".


----------



## Loachman

That is culturally linked with airmobile assaults, thanks to Apocalypse Now. You could have bigger speakers, though.

Paint-filled ammunition a la Kelly's Heroes could add a nice visual splash to the music. How much paint could be packed into a cruise missile?


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes of course, Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries".



Give over!  "Hearts of Oak"!   [


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> That is culturally linked with airmobile assaults, thanks to Apocalypse Now. You could have bigger speakers, though.
> 
> Paint-filled ammunition a la Kelly's Heroes could add a nice visual splash to the music. How much paint could be packed into a cruise missile?



What would be the effect of a missile load of metallic paint on the ship's sensors?  (Fast Drying - needless to say).


----------



## jollyjacktar

Loachman said:
			
		

> That is culturally linked with airmobile assaults, thanks to Apocalypse Now. You could have bigger speakers, though.
> 
> Paint-filled ammunition a la Kelly's Heroes could add a nice visual splash to the music. How much paint could be packed into a cruise missile?



Or, you could use actual Minstrels ala the Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  After all, were not the various bands under threat?


----------



## dapaterson

Mistral =/= Minstrel.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

We thought it did, until we got wind of your post.

(See what I did, there  [).

But do ponder these words from "Le Mistral" by Roger Whittaker:

Ce vent qui fait danser la mer est violent comme le tonnerre;
Ou alors ils se calme et devient le plus doux de tous les musiciens;
Le Mistral ressemble à l'amour car il est fou et si tendre.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm not holding my breath for anything more than a few AOPS at this point.

The intended Defense Review will probably discover that we (Canada) has little need for anything more than a constabulary Navy.

At that point, the Victoria class will end up disappearing, the Halifax class will end up reverting to national taskings and not be replaced, there will be no need for the AOR's, and the Frigate replacement project will become an MCDV replacement project.

Or we could get lucky and end up actually seeing new ships.

During our best years, I didn't think I'd realistically see a BHS in Halifax harbour.  Now I have my doubts about any future class for which steel has not yet been cut.

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar

I share your fears.


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'm not holding my breath for anything more than a few AOPS at this point.
> 
> The intended Defense Review will probably discover that we (Canada) has little need for anything more than a constabulary Navy.
> 
> At that point, the Victoria class will end up disappearing, the Halifax class will end up reverting to national taskings and not be replaced, there will be no need for the AOR's, and the Frigate replacement project will become an MCDV replacement project.
> 
> Or we could get lucky and end up actually seeing new ships.
> 
> During our best years, I didn't think I'd realistically see a BHS in Halifax harbour.  Now I have my doubts about any future class for which steel has not yet been cut.
> 
> NS



I have similar misgivings except for one niggling thought.  
I think the army will take the cuts more than the navy.  The Navy is an invaluable tool for the government, especially Liberal governments all the way back to WWII.  Mac-King committed so much emphasis on the navy because it would avoid the casualties of the WWI with ground troops and was very resistant to committing an army to Europe.  Chrétien was similarly happy with the naval effort for the *Gulf War 2.0.  The Cuban missile crisis, 911 response, etc...  The navy gets us more political brownie points with the US than ground troops usually do.  It gets more domestic brownie points as well (jobs jobs jobs).  And it's easily ignored nature doesn't bring up the nasty "combat" thoughts in the general media.  Trudeau's statement that he wants to "spend the money" on the navy is important.  It also makes much more strategic sense from a Canadian foreign (sorry GLOBAL) policy perspective when thinking about Canada's core strategic interests.  But we will see I suppose.  I expect there will be things we dislike and things we like in any policy review.

*edit: thanks OGBD


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A navy fitted for, but not with nasty pointy sticks


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> A navy fitted for, but not with nasty pointy sticks



You could poke someone's eye out!


----------



## Lumber

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But, OGBD, to be fair isn't the Rail Gun going to be a more up to date version of what the Capital ships of yore's rifles provided and why they're doing it?



The issue is actually getting into gun range. Yes, the rail gun is toted to have huge range, but will it be accurate against a moving warship? We don't have the capability to conduct over the horizon engagement with third party "active" targeting, so you're basically lobbing shells based on speed and direction, both of which change drastically during an engagement.

Right now, missiles are developing in capability much faster than missile defences. We don't have any actual engagement data involving modern missiles with which to assess our modern anti-missile defenses. So far, it looks like a case of MAD. You lob your missiles at me, and I lob my missiles at you, and we both die. The fleet with the most ship's wins. Bigger ships might also be able to eat a few missiles without being right offs.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:
			
		

> The issue is actually getting into gun range. Yes, the rail gun is toted to have huge range, but will it be accurate against a moving warship? We don't have the capability to conduct over the horizon engagement with third party "active" targeting, so you're basically lobbing shells based on speed and direction, both of which change drastically during an engagement.
> 
> Right now, missiles are developing in capability much faster than missile defences. We don't have any actual engagement data involving modern missiles with which to assess our modern anti-missile defenses. So far, it looks like a case of MAD. You lob your missiles at me, and I lob my missiles at you, and we both die. The fleet with the most ship's wins. Bigger ships might also be able to eat a few missiles without being right offs.



I attended a lecture given by Gwynne Dyer a number of years ago and Dr. Dyer surmised that any big conventional war today would involve the powers that be lobbing missiles at each other with everyones high tech tanks, ships and planes destroyed after about two weeks.

After that, warfare would revert to something like what we saw in WW1 with every side equipped with relatively lowtech weaponry but able to be produced en masse.  I can't help but think he was/is right.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber said:
			
		

> The issue is actually getting into gun range. Yes, the rail gun is toted to have huge range, but will it be accurate against a moving warship? We don't have the capability to conduct over the horizon engagement with third party "active" targeting, so you're basically lobbing shells based on speed and direction, both of which change drastically during an engagement.
> 
> Right now, missiles are developing in capability much faster than missile defences. We don't have any actual engagement data involving modern missiles with which to assess our modern anti-missile defenses. So far, it looks like a case of MAD. You lob your missiles at me, and I lob my missiles at you, and we both die. The fleet with the most ship's wins. Bigger ships might also be able to eat a few missiles without being right offs.



From what I have seen on YouTube on missile tests against target ships, I don't know if even the big fellas could eat more than one missile before becoming a write off for all intents and purposes.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I attended a lecture given by Gwynne Dyer a number of years ago and Dr. Dyer surmised that any big conventional war today would involve the powers that be lobbing missiles at each other with everyones high tech tanks, ships and planes destroyed after about two weeks.
> 
> After that, warfare would revert to something like what we saw in WW1 with every side equipped with relatively lowtech weaponry but able to be produced en masse.  I can't help but think he was/is right.



“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”  - Albert Einstein


----------



## Lumber

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I attended a lecture given by Gwynne Dyer a number of years ago and Dr. Dyer surmised that any big conventional war today would involve the powers that be lobbing missiles at each other with everyones high tech tanks, ships and planes destroyed after about two weeks.
> 
> After that, warfare would revert to something like what we saw in WW1 with every side equipped with relatively lowtech weaponry but able to be produced en masse.  I can't help but think he was/is right.



Possibly, but I think it would depend on who is fighting who, it terms of the relative sizes of their militaries. If the Chinese when to war with Japan, for example, they could sustain a 2:1 loss ration in terms of ship's and fighter air craft, and still come out on top (Eastern Front WWII, anyone?). 

But there could be away that a major power, going up against an equally powerful enemy, could avoid this, and that would be with a preemptive strike. The US isn't stupid. They aren't going to advertise on CNN that they are declaring war on China/Russia, whichever. If relations got so bad that they were on the brink of war, I feel like the US, before advertising it to the public, would make a firm decision "the war is on". Long before this point, they'd have SSGNs siting outside major PLAN/RN naval basis, and SSNs shadowing any units at sea, and on the day they determine that they are past the tipping point, suddenly all the PLAN/RN ships are put out of action before the war even starts.

Hmm... I think I just described a American version of Pearl Harbour, so maybe I need to rework this theory...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway said:
			
		

> I have similar misgivings except for one niggling thought.
> I think the army will take the cuts more than the navy.  The Navy is an invaluable tool for the government, especially Liberal governments all the way back to WWII.  Mac-King committed so much emphasis on the navy because it would avoid the casualties of the WWI with ground troops and was very resistant to committing an army to Europe.  Chrétien was similarly happy with the naval effort for the Gulf War.  The Cuban missile crisis, 911 response, etc...  The navy gets us more political brownie points with the US than ground troops usually do.  It gets more domestic brownie points as well (jobs jobs jobs).  And it's easily ignored nature doesn't bring up the nasty "combat" thoughts in the general media.  Trudeau's statement that he wants to "spend the money" on the navy is important.  It also makes much more strategic sense from a Canadian foreign (sorry GLOBAL) policy perspective when thinking about Canada's core strategic interests.  But we will see I suppose.  I expect there will be things we dislike and things we like in any policy review.



Just a small historical correction here Underway: Chretien had absolutely nothing to do with sending the navy into the Gulf War. In fact, that happened three years before he even became Prime Minister. It was PM Mulroney that sent the Navy to GW. (GW = 1990-91; PM Chretien = 1993-2003)

It was PM Chretien, however, that committed the CF to a huge increase of troops in AFG (from about 500-600 up to more than 2000) notwithstanding the fact that the CF leadership of the time told him we did not have the resources to do it (as was later confirmed by the Manley report, leading the Conservatives under PM Harper to acquire urgently many pieces of kit) in the early 2003, so he could then claim that he did not have any resources to put into the Iraq campaign.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Chretien also didn't want to go into Iraq because it would upset TotalFinaElf (Power Corp) assets in that country. Power Corp (and Chretien) stood to make millions if Saddam Hussein stayed in power. By tying us up in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be able to participate in Iraq.

Dated but relevant, even today as another Liberal PM, with ties to Power Corp, is in charge of our country.

More on link: http://www.primetimecrime.com/contributing/2005/20050120Gray.htm



> *Canadian Legacy: The familial and financial ins and outs of Canadian politics.*
> 
> By Ann Jane Gray
> 
> Many puzzled Canadians have watched while Jean Chretien pursued an anti-American, pro-Saddam Hussein policy that is not in the best interests of Canada.  If Hussein had managed to retain power, Jean Chretien's family stood to make millions. We believe that much can be explained by examining the political and familial connections of the Prime Minister.
> 
> First it is necessary to understand that some federal (and provincial) politicians of all stripes belong to an exclusive club. Below you will read about the cast of characters and some of the known leading roles:
> 
> John Rae was the leading strategist for Jean Chretien's election campaign. He was formerly the Executive vice-president of Power Corp. He is the brother of Bob Rae, the former NDP premier of Ontario.
> 
> Bob Rae, while Premier of Ontario, appointed Maurice Strong as chairman of Ontario Hydro. The past CEO of Paul Desmarais' Power Corporation, Strong was appointed to the UN as a senior environmental adviser to the UN secretary-general and Chairman of the Earth Council. His area of responsibility was the Kyoto Accord.
> 
> Paul Martin, formerly the Finance Minister under the current regime is considered a shoo in for Prime Minister as Jean Chretien exits the scene in February of 2004. Martin was previously on the board of Power Corp and formerly on the board of Connaught Laboratories. Allegations have been made of Connaught's implication in the tainted blood scandal. Martin and a partner purchased Canada Steamship Lines from Paul Desmarais of Power Corp at extremely favorable terms. Martin later bought the partner out. What obligations does Martin owe to Power Corporation interests once he becomes Prime Minister? Martin registered many of his vessels out of the country in third world registries, thus evading Canadian income taxes. Third world crews working in third world conditions crew his third world registry ships. Canadians must question whether the morality of Martin's evading Canadian income taxes while Finance Minister is a matter of concern. (I watch foreign registered Canadian Steamship Lines freighters go by every day in the Great Lakes - recceguy)
> 
> Jean Chretien's daughter France is married to Andre Desmarais, the son of Paul Desmarais, of Power Corporation. Andre is on the board of multinational communications conglomerate Vivendi.  He runs Power Corporation. (estimated annual revenues $18-billion)
> 
> According to Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun, in Le Monde, December 1, 1994, Jean Chretien, while in France talked about how French-Canadians had been "humiliated"  by the English and how today they see themselves as "martyrs." He boasted he was getting his own revenge and we quote: "For example, I have just appointed an Acadian to the office of governor general. So the governor general is a francophone. The same is true, among others, of the prime minister, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Speaker of the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Finance."
> 
> Many Canadians will remember Jean Chretien's frequent trips to China. Andre Desmarais sits on the board of Peoples' Republic of China's China International Trust and Investment Corporation. This is considered to be the investment arm of the Chinese military. Through Project Sidewinder, the RCMP tried to investigate the links between the Prime Minister of Canada, Desmarais and China. and potential undue influence on Canadian politicians.  For more information on the China connection read the WatchDog article "Jean Chretien and the Sidewinder Report."
> 
> Jean Chretien supported the powerful third world bloc of the UN. He supported France, Germany and Russia whose oil and debt interests in Iraq apparently override any human rights violation or concerns. He could have another more immediate reason.  According to Diane Francis of the National Post, Paris-based TotalFinaElf's biggest shareholder is Paul Desmarais Sr. She also states in a recent article, "Canada's stance is all the more unacceptable because it aligns us with such soiled nations as France, Germany and Russia which made billions of dollars with Saddam Hussein, ran interference for him diplomatically and signed huge future oil contracts with his deposed regime." --End of quote. Paul Desmarais Jr. sits on the board of TotalFinaElf.
> 
> Totalfinael apparently now has a large share of the major oilsands project in Alberta. The Alberta Oilsands could be one of the two largest relatively untapped oil reserves in the world. It will not be in France's interests to have Alberta secede to become a new independent nation or to join with the United States.
> 
> So it seems apparent the the financial oil interests of Jean Chretien's family had a direct bearing on the stance Canada took in the recent liberation of Iraq.
> 
> Mitchell Sharp, while Finance Minister introduced Jean Chretien to politics. When Chretien became Prime Minister, Mitchell Sharpe was appointed as the famous dollar a year advisor to Chretien. Since 1981, Sharpe has been vice-Chairman of North American of the Trilateral Commission.
> 
> Daniel Johnson formerly Liberal leader in Quebec is credited for having delivered much federal spending to the Quebec based Power Corporation.
> 
> Brian Mulroney, the Conservative ex-Prime Minister is now on a dozen boards in corporate offices including some Power Corporation and Quebecor World. He is a lawyer and lobbyist for Power Corporation. Power Corp and Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec formed a Hong Kong-based Asian Group Inc. to assist China in developing its energy potential.
> Sources claim Power Corp's legal interests in Asia are reportedly handled by a Hong Kong branch of Mulroney's Montreal law firm, Ogilvy Renault.
> 
> While in office, Pierre Trudeau's government (Prime Minister and a former Power Corp. lawyer) signed over millions to Power Corporation under federal grant programs. Desmarais was credited with funding his election campaign.
> 
> Power Corporation began as a broken down bus line in Ontario. He moved his company to Quebec where he purchased another bus line in Quebec City. Able to get the ear of government, Desmarais went from success to success. Today Power Corporation is a multi-national company with many subsidiaries, over-extended not surprisingly as government bailouts have always been there. Since the first of the year Bombardier has received $1.5 billion in loans for its planes. These low-interest loans made to countries such as Spain have allowed them to buy airplanes, thus enabling this troubled industry to stay afloat.
> 
> So we now have an elite club of Conservatives, (Mulroney) Liberals (Trudeau and Chretien) and the NDP (Bob Rae) all connected to Paul Desmarais and Power Corporation.



So, who's really pulling the strings in Ottawa? We just gave another forgivable loan to Bombardier (Power Corp) and the government is stalling on the pipelines. Perhaps to ensure that Desmarais oil gets to our east coast from the middle east in tankers?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

that was a trip down memory lane my blood pressure didn't need......


----------



## AirDet

Not exactly a Minstrel but interesting capability.

https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/an-ocean-of-opportunity/


----------



## FSTO

AirDet said:
			
		

> Not exactly a Minstrel but interesting capability.
> 
> https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/an-ocean-of-opportunity/



Brazil bought her.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I was just about to say the same thing: Airdet is behind his time with that two year old story.

Furthermore, the Brits only decommissioned her two years ahead of her scheduled disposal, so - no, she is not in good condition for a long extra life - but Brazil doesn't care. Canada does.

Finally, AirDet: It is MISTRAL, not MINSTREL! One is a mediterranean wind, the other one a public amuser.  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Finally, AirDet: It is MISTRAL, not MINSTREL! One is a mediterranean wind, the other one a public amuser.  ;D



You mean our current PM? 😉


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Hole in one, Hamish!

But in the Navy, we don't name our ships after Prime Ministers. We leave that to the Coast Guard.
 :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AirDet said:
			
		

> Not exactly a Minstrel but interesting capability.
> 
> https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/an-ocean-of-opportunity/



We kicked that around, but it's not that practical for us. A Mistral using some of the Russian mods for ice work would be good, have the hull built over there and outfitting done at Davie. Run it as a part of the Federal Fleet Services till you can rebuild the RCN personal. I suspect that she would be a popular ship.


----------



## AirDet

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I was just about to say the same thing: Airdet is behind his time with that two year old story.
> 
> Furthermore, the Brits only decommissioned her two years ahead of her scheduled disposal, so - no, she is not in good condition for a long extra life - but Brazil doesn't care. Canada does.
> 
> Finally, AirDet: It is MISTRAL, not MINSTREL! One is a mediterranean wind, the other one a public amuser.  ;D



Just posing ideas since the Ministers are such an expensive boat.   ;D


----------



## AirDet

Don't forget, I'm a zoomie not a fishhead.
 :tsktsk:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canada can't afford a helicopter carrier like Australia, because our GDP and population are smaller!!!!........oops


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Canada can't afford a helicopter carrier like Australia, because our GDP and population are smaller!!!!........oops



Don't you mean political will?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I believe, jjt, that this was exactly Colin's point ... put in a sarcastic way.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, OGBD, I believe you're quite correct.  I didn't have my sarcasm glasses on to read correctly.


----------



## Cloud Cover

So, just for arguments sake, lets assume that there was "political will" - I don't believe money is really the issue if there is political will, we are pretty good at borrowing 

Why go small like the Mistral, Ocean etc. ??  Those ships seem to act complementary with an identical twin or an LPD  (Albion class for example) although they can (and do) work alone.  All of those ships would require complementary escort vessels, and extra/special helicopters and fleet train support which I will also take the liberty of assuming there would be political will to acquire.    

It seems to me to be quite a statement of underachievement for this country if we were to decide to get into the LPH/LHA game and then acquire something like a Mistral or Ocean class. If you think about the navies the Mistrals were designed to be situated in - French and Russian- each with larger aircraft carriers and support fleets, (and the British with 3 Invincible class carriers when Ocean was launched and operated for the the first 10+ years of its life.)  

It seems to me this nation would be better served by something like one of the _America_ class LHA-8+.  Just one of those ships could carry pretty much the entire available ground and helicopter force needed for an operation of extended duration, and if needed they actually can operate VTOL jet aircraft of either US, UK (future), Italy, Spain  (gasp maybe even Canadian).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Here's why a country like Canada goes with a Mistral or  Ocean (or, my actual preference, a Canberra class):

America class: 1060 friggin sailors to operate the damn thing - to carry 1850 Marines. Where is Canada going to find 1060 extra sailors?? Or the Army 1850 soldiers for that matter.

Mistral or Ocean: Navy crew: respectively 160/285 to carry respectively 450/830 "marines".

Which is why my preference is the Canberra class: 360 Sailors/Air group (sailors alone: 230) to carry  a little over 1000 army personnel when need be.

Bonus: Great potential for inter-service postings with our R.A.N. brethren to exchange lessons learned in the class and participate in multi-units EX and OP, leveraging the commonalities from both services to reach higher capabilities than if acting alone.


----------



## dapaterson

Added bonus - supports a pivot toward the Pacific which we badly need.


----------



## MTShaw

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I attended a lecture given by Gwynne Dyer a number of years ago and Dr. Dyer surmised that any big conventional war today would involve the powers that be lobbing missiles at each other with everyones high tech tanks, ships and planes destroyed after about two weeks.
> 
> After that, warfare would revert to something like what we saw in WW1 with every side equipped with relatively lowtech weaponry but able to be produced en masse.  I can't help but think he was/is right.



Mr. Bogart,

Was that lecture possibly captured on video?

Michael


----------



## Cloud Cover

Sure, of course there aren't 1000 sailors +++ marines and aircrew, thats why this whole thing is a "what if" even if it was a Canberra class or a Banana class (and I doubt the heads on a Canberra class can handle 1000 Diggers for much more than a week). 

The point being, if the "political will" was ever present to do something like that in Canada, is a limited LHA/LPD ship of limited capability the way to go, or a hybrid aircraft carrier "like" the the America class* the better theoretical option (again, considering that no such ship, whatever size, is ever going to be an actual option for Little Canada).    

To be clear, I'm not in favour of any type of ship like this for the RCN (ever), but I don't see the point of considering half arsed little ships pretending to be in a league in which they are out-classed from the start, regardless of what oceanographic region that we pivot towards.  

I think the Japanese are seeing that problem with their new concepts of potentially operating the F35B off the _Izumo_ class and considering that at a "mere" 27,000 tons it is too small for the growing purposes for which they apparently now have the political will attributed to them: "....The government and the LDP envision deploying _refitted_ Izumo carriers with F-35Bs to the southwest, where they could respond quickly to problems in such areas as the Senkaku Islands, which are administered by Japan and claimed by China as the Diaoyu,” ... 

Similarly, somehow I don't see South Korea being content with its new Dokdo LPD once they start flying operations.**

Anyway,  just a thought experiment, wondering if political will/ (modest needs + modest means) = 20,000 tons of "showing up" or 45,000 tons of "being there."  

Also, with Australia, Korea, Japan, India and the US operating many types of LHA, LPD, and half of the USN CVN's in the Pacific, why do we need to pivot that way at all?? Our economic interests are already militarily covered by others. 


* https://thediplomat.com/2014/04/does-the-us-navy-have-10-or-19-aircraft-carriers/  

** https://archive.is/fuJZP


----------



## Journeyman

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> .... the Pacific, why do we need to pivot that way at all?? Our economic interests are already militarily covered by others.


And that, sadly, is the true Canadian way.    :not-again:


Unfortunately, our Asian/Pacific interests are increasingly undermined by a dilettante political leader whose behaviour saw him being ignored in Asian trade meetings and mocked in India -- a situation made worse by erratic and potentially unreliable US leadership -- neither of which fit well in a Navy procurement thread (which is outside of my lane, so I'll leave the Boaty McBoatface discussions to those who know what they're talking about....and the other, inevitable, usual suspects who just like making posts  ).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And defines how you can tell you are someone else's colony.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here's why a country like Canada goes with a Mistral or  Ocean (or, my actual preference, a Canberra class):
> 
> America class: 1060 friggin sailors to operate the damn thing - to carry 1850 Marines. Where is Canada going to find 1060 extra sailors?? Or the Army 1850 soldiers for that matter.
> 
> Mistral or Ocean: Navy crew: respectively 160/285 to carry respectively 450/830 "marines".
> 
> Which is why my preference is the Canberra class: 360 Sailors/Air group (sailors alone: 230) to carry  a little over 1000 army personnel when need be.
> 
> Bonus: Great potential for inter-service postings with our R.A.N. brethren to exchange lessons learned in the class and participate in multi-units EX and OP, leveraging the commonalities from both services to reach higher capabilities than if acting alone.



Anyone done a costing between the Mistral and Canberra? Either way, having such ships is like having the C-17's, Canada can contribute to many types of missions, gaining international brownie points at little political risk. The political benefits of such ships in foreign diplomacy and international cooperation is so huge, I am bewildered by way the Libs did not push for a these and another Resolve AOR. One of these carriers, new AOR and 1 escort could be the nucleus of any sort of international task force. Park them off Somali to support other nation ships and have a QRF from another country on board the Carrier and you will be able to support the whole operation, while the other nations do all the interactions.


----------



## jollyjacktar

My choice would be for a Canberra class.  I am surprised the Humanitarian Relief capabilities of such as ship wouldn't be appealing to the GoC, especially the one in power right now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely as it means more helicopters needed and we all know how much Liberals love helicopter contracts


----------



## Kirkhill

In addition to helicopters each Big Ship, even with a minimalist civilian crew (20 to 50 Mariners), would require beans, blankets and bandages.   They are, after all, just floating warehouses that can relocate from crisis to crisis.

Warehouses are only useful if there is stuff to go in them.  How are you making out with boots and parkas?

Not to mention, the need for water trucks to manage the "dock to dock" transfer from the "warehouse" to the shore.

And that is for White-painted Humanitarian Vessels - not ones with bullets and tanks and "Attack-Helicopters" on board.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hi I am from Federal Fleet services and I am here to help you......  

and 

Hi I am from Canadian Helicopters and we can help you as well http://www.canadianhelicopters.com/fleet/twin-engine-aircraft/


----------



## JMCanada

While the Canberra is a great ship, I do not believe Canada should enter into that costly vessel: 
1.- Should some hundreds of soldiers be deployed by sea somewhere out from CAN, the best option would be along with our US allies: they could embark on their San Antonio, America or Wasp class LHDs / LPDs. Then use our frigates to escort them.
2.- The Canberra is a huge vessel and therefore a big and attractive target for enemies, with the need of at least a couple of well-armed escorts.
3.- Having just one would make it a precious treasure which in case of need the Government (of any colour) would rarely afford to lose. For US losing one LHD/LPD in combat means just one out of a dozen. To be capable to risk such kind of vessel on high-level scenarios, the navy should at least have 3 units (as with battleships in WWI). Otherwise in case of lose the moral impact would be enormous.

Instead I proposed the CSC to be well-armed for escort operations, either in the Atlantic or the Pacific.
Coming back to the beginning of this thread (get a big ship). I have read somewhere that pk (kill probability) of missiles may be in war times as low as in the range of 10-20%, much below that the peacetime tests (60 to 95%). I also consider that the CSCs should return safely to a friendly port. 

Based on that I dare to make a proposal (realistic one) for their armament:
- 16 VLS cells for SAM-2/Aster_30 missiles ;  32 for an AAW variant, which could be 5 out of 15 units.
- 8 VLS cells for quad-packed ESSM/CAMM (32 units) ; 16 cells (64 units) for the AAW version
- 8 VLS cells for ASROC missiles for ASW/ defence.
- 8 VLS cells (strike) for either anti-ballistic missiles, long-range ones (like SAM-6) or Cruise (Tomahawk Scalp naval or similar).
This makes a total of 40 VLS cells (64 for the AAW variant). Compared to the vessels already operating in other navies like Type 45, Horizon, Fremm, Zeven Provincien, F-100/Hobart, ... and also those beyond the Pacific ocean, does not seem to be an illusion but realistic possibilities.

On top of this, I would also count on 2x 4 Harpoon canisters or similar (Exocet, Naval Strike missile), one 127mm gun (Mk 45), 2x gun-based CIWS (Phalanx, Oerlikon Millenium or similar) and 1x missile based CIWS (Mistral-Tetral, SeaRam or similar).
Finally I would also include 2 helicopters for the ASW missions, which not necessarily should be 2x Cyclones, but they could be one Cyclone and one AW-159 Wildcat/ NH60 SeaHawk.

Sounds quite reasonable, does not?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I can tellyou with some degree of certainty that Canada would not embark upon a second MH competition, to buy a supplement to the Cyclone fleet, anytime soon, as you propose.

That said, purchasing some type of naval UAV is probably within the realm of the possible.


----------



## JMCanada

You are right, I know. Having a 2nd helo is more a wish than anything else. 

But I consider than the 2nd helo for ASW would be almost a MUST for any navy: provides more time a day for searching submarines, higher reliability (if one breaks down, still you have the 2nd while repairing the 1st) and provides support either to cover a wider area or to better locate the SS. 

And I find that flying 6.000 kg  (Wildcat) with all its ASW capabilities is more efficient searching the SS than running all time with 13.000 kg on the air.


----------



## FSTO

JMCanada said:
			
		

> You are right, I know. Having a 2nd helo is more a wish than anything else.
> 
> But I consider than the 2nd helo for ASW would be almost a MUST for any navy: provides more time a day for searching submarines, higher reliability (if one breaks down, still you have the 2nd while repairing the 1st) and provides support either to cover a wider area or to better locate the SS.
> 
> And I find that flying 6.000 kg  (Wildcat) with all its ASW capabilities is more efficient searching the SS than running all time with 13.000 kg on the air.



Stop with the second type of helicopter on a frigate/destroyer okay? These size of ships are packed to the hilt already (helicopter support) and having a second aircraft type and the accompanying spare parts is just not feasible.  

You might as well have a Canberra type carrier and carry a dozen helicopters!


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I can tellyou with some degree of certainty that Canada would not embark upon a second MH competition, to buy a supplement to the Cyclone fleet, anytime soon, as you propose.
> 
> That said, purchasing some type of naval UAV is probably within the realm of the possible.



I know for a fact that NETE is working on developing a UXV control system to control multiple types of UXV's from one system.  Flexibility from a single space.  The currently navy UAV is a RQ-20 Puma which I don't know is purchased yet but the contract has be awarded.


----------



## Cronicbny

Underway said:
			
		

> I know for a fact that NETE is working on developing a UXV control system to control multiple types of UXV's from one system.  Flexibility from a single space.  The currently navy UAV is a RQ-20 Puma which I don't know is purchased yet but the contract has be awarded.



We have Puma on both coasts now. HAT completed out west a few weeks ago. SATs upcoming.


----------



## JMCanada

FSTO said:
			
		

> You might as well have a Canberra type carrier and carry a dozen helicopters!


Actually ... she can embark up to 30 NH-90 helicopters  8)

OK ... I did not think much on spare parts and so, but I would prefer 2 medium helos (same type) in an ASW frigate than only one Cyclone. Could leave Cyclones on other frigates for other purposes as AEW/ASaC.

I did not know about RQ-20 Puma, and for sure it has unique features for Canadian climate, but in order to operate in warmer waters Fulmar has much better capabilities for a similar length and wingspan.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/fulmar-x


----------



## Cloud Cover

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I can tellyou with some degree of certainty that Canada would not embark upon a second MH competition, to buy a supplement to the Cyclone fleet, anytime soon, as you propose.
> 
> That said, purchasing some type of naval UAV is probably within the realm of the possible.



I'm curious if you are of the opinion that Canada has purchased MH for the next 50-60 years?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

All I can go by is our recent procurement history....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Actually ... she can embark up to 30 NH-90 helicopters  8)
> 
> OK ... I did not think much on spare parts and so, but I would prefer 2 medium helos (same type) in an ASW frigate than only one Cyclone. Could leave Cyclones on other frigates for other purposes as AEW/ASaC.



Asid from the amount of issues that would come from a second helicopter on an ASW frigate...3 questions:

1.  You do know the CH-148 is an ASW helicopter, right?  (I'm not SURE what you'd propose doing with the Cyclone, their gear and crews that are there for ASW)

2.  Where are these "other, non-ASW frigates" coming from in the RCN?  Are we able to put the entire fleet of CPFs to sea now at once?  Do any of our Allies want/need us to do these other tasks and are we 'big' enough for that stuff?

3.  2 types of helicopters for the RCN would require 2 different types of aircrew and maintainers as well.  Where will they come from?  

OK...I couldn't limit it to 3 questions...but it was close.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A modern version of the flying peanut with a dip sonar would be interesting, mount the Mk 48 triple mounts on the AOP's and they could do some ASW if needed, their a target anyways.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvRrv8St2I


----------



## suffolkowner

It doesn't seem likely that an additional aircraft could be added to a frigate. 
Does not our doctrine count/rely on a medium helicopter capable of independent operation from the ship? 
How would the other helicopter be integrated? 
I could see another helicopter based off the AOR(Maybe UH-1Y).
Can the CH-148 be used for other purposes or are they essentially limited to anti submarine warfare?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Can the CH-148 be used for other purposes



Yes



> or are they essentially limited to anti submarine warfare?



No.


----------



## suffolkowner

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yes
> 
> No.



Thanks EITS

That would suggest to me that there is no huge need to diversify the marine helicopter fleet


----------



## FSTO

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Thanks EITS
> 
> That would suggest to me that there is no huge need to diversify the marine helicopter fleet



That is why we have such a big bird on the decks of our frigates. It gives the RCN great flexibility when conducting operations abroad and not just ASW.

Hmmmm, just imagine the flexibility and range of operations that a carrier the size of Mistral or Canberra would provide to the government of Canada? 
But then, that would assume that Canada is capable of having some sort of strategic doctrine to support combat/peace support or disaster relief operations outside of purely ad hocery.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would have been fun to be in the room if Harper had gotten the 2 Mistrals and dropped the bomb on the senior staff; "By the way you now have 2 helicopter carrying assault ships you need to incorporate into how you do business and we have a mission for you already....."


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> 1.  It doesn't seem likely that an additional aircraft could be added to a frigate.
> 2.  Does not our doctrine count/rely on a medium helicopter capable of independent operation from the ship?
> 3.  How would the other helicopter be integrated?
> I could see another helicopter based off the AOR(Maybe UH-1Y).
> 4.  Can the CH-148 be used for other purposes or are they essentially limited to anti submarine warfare?



Questions in order...

1.  An additional aircraft can be added provided its not much bigger then a Puma.  Not much space left in that hangar when the Cyclone is embarked.

2.  Yes.  The capabilities of a medium helo are one of the reasons the TG numbers are what they are.  

3.  There was a discussion on another thread regarding using a helo for AEW much the same way the UK does.  I would surmise that would be a good use.

4.  Their surface search radar is excellent.  Asking a Cyclone in the air to pop up to 10000 ft or so to help find a contact is a real game changer in Recognized Maritime Picture.  They can the go check out the contact if needed.  Their sensor suite is amazing.  I'm a huge fanboy of this aircraft so far.


----------



## tomahawk6

Some type of helicopter assault ship would have a number of possible missions from ASW to humanitarian. It would be a good to have on the tool belt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010499/Japanese-navy-gets-biggest-flat-WWII-era-aircraft-carriers.html


----------



## JMCanada

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Asid from the amount of issues that would come from a second helicopter on an ASW frigate...3 questions:
> Since I am not an expert ...  could you please indicate a few ?
> 
> 1.  You do know the CH-148 is an ASW helicopter, right?  (...)
> Yes ... and can do many other tasks as well, for which the crews are trained.
> 
> 2.  Where are these "other, non-ASW frigates" coming from in the RCN?
> Well, when I started my post in this thread I mentioned about future CSCs, of which I would make two variants: ASW (10 units) & AAW (5). All the following is built on that as a will/ desire/ hypotheses on my best understanding.
> 
> Of course I am not suggesting all the CSCs (and crews) should be available at all times.
> 
> 3.  2 types of helicopters for the RCN would require 2 different types of aircrew and maintainers as well. (...)



Sorry if I have bothered anyone, was not at all in my mind. I see Cyclones as a very useful MH including ASW roles , but looking into other navies ...

* UK operates both Merlin (similar to Cyclone) and AW 159 Wildcat

* Italy & Germany use 2 helos in their ASW Fremms / F-123 & F-124 frigates.

* French navy is operating 4 types of helos: panther, dauphin, caiman (NH90) & Lynx (what a zoo    ).

That being said, my proposal is for only a second type of helo of around 6.000 kg MTOW. I consider this could bring savings by using them as a "force multiplier" in support of the frigates and Cyclones. 

Doesn't it make sense a naval group of one AAW frigate with one CH-148, another ASW or multipurpose frig with one more CH-148 and a 3rd ASW frig with 2x Wildcats to cover a wider area and provide more time on air?

This , of course, from an amateur point of view.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin P said:
			
		

> A modern version of the flying peanut with a dip sonar would be interesting, mount the Mk 48 triple mounts on the AOP's and they could do some ASW if needed, their a target anyways.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvRrv8St2I



Mk48 torpedos, are a heavy weight, launched only by submarines. 

They are not carried by surface ships, ever. You are, perhaps, thinking of either the Mk46 or the Mk54.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Sorry if I have bothered anyone, was not at all in my mind. I see Cyclones as a very useful MH including ASW roles , but looking into other navies ...
> 
> * UK operates both Merlin (similar to Cyclone) and AW 159 Wildcat
> 
> * Italy & Germany use 2 helos in their ASW Fremms / F-123 & F-124 frigates.
> 
> * French navy is operating 4 types of helos: panther, dauphin, caiman (NH90) & Lynx (what a zoo    ).
> 
> That being said, my proposal is for only a second type of helo of around 6.000 kg MTOW. I consider this could bring savings by using them as a "force multiplier" in support of the frigates and Cyclones.
> 
> Doesn't it make sense a naval group of one AAW frigate with one CH-148, another ASW or multipurpose frig with one more CH-148 and a 3rd ASW frig with 2x Wildcats to cover a wider area and provide more time on air?
> 
> This , of course, from an amateur point of view.



Without getting into a lot of detail, none of what you propose makes any sense for Canada.

Our task groups are structured in such a way that the Cyclone provides 24/7 coverage. It it large enough to carry enough sensors to be able to switch roles, required. A small helo like your propose is a "one trick pony" or is always fuel critical.

To say nothing about where we would get the people to staff entirely new squadrons- personnel being a zero sum game in the CAF.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Mk48 torpedos, are a heavy weight, launched only by submarines.
> 
> They are not carried by surface ships, ever. You are, perhaps, thinking of either the Mk46 or the Mk54.



you be correct, my bad.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Sorry if I have bothered anyone, was not at all in my mind.



I don't think you're bothering anyone, truthfully.  Some of us here do the Maritime and Maritime Air stuff for a living so we're a little more aware of the issues that come along with 'adding this or that' into our current ORBAT.  

*disclaimer - I am not an MH type, but I understand some of the very basic 'stuff' about their (both the RCN and MH) worlds.  I am a LRP type; we work with them on occasion.


----------



## FSTO

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Sorry if I have bothered anyone, was not at all in my mind.



No you are not bothering anyone. In fact its nice to see a Canadian citizen take an interest in our nation's maritime defence capabilities. 

I apologize for my somewhat snarky response to your initial post.

Cheers and keep up your interest!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> 4.  Their surface search radar is excellent.  Asking a Cyclone in the air to pop up to 10000 ft or so to help find a contact is a real game changer in Recognized Maritime Picture.  They can the go check out the contact if needed.  Their sensor suite is amazing.  I'm a huge fanboy of this aircraft so far.



I'd love to see the LRP fleet start getting a little more involved in the picture you're talking about here too, Cdn CPFs, SSKs, MH and LRPAs working and training together.  I know, I'm dreaming.   ;D

Very happy to hear the Cyclone is thought of this way though.  I'm sure there will be tons of discussions during the VDQ sail and "lessons learned" stuff both during and after they get back.


----------



## Swampbuggy

If we were looking at a second class of MH, I’d like to see one picked for AOPS operations. I read awhile back a proposal for a variant of the new help the CCG just got. A Cyclone seems like overkill on an AOPS and I’m still not sure about CCG air dets on RCN missions.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd love to see the LRP fleet start getting a little more involved in the picture you're talking about here too, Cdn CPFs, SSKs, MH and LRPAs working and training together.  I know, I'm dreaming.   ;D



If the Russians keep putting more and more subs in the North Atlantic, you may get your dream EITS.

As I have said before, during the Cold War, I don't know a single CO who didn't say a quiet prayer of thanks to the Sea Gods whenever we had MPA flying in support.


----------



## Gorgo

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Some type of helicopter assault ship would have a number of possible missions from ASW to humanitarian. It would be a good to have on the tool belt.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010499/Japanese-navy-gets-biggest-flat-WWII-era-aircraft-carriers.html



Agreed.  Getting something like the _Izumo_ would propel us back into the carrier business, give us a forward strike platform for whenever we get the F-35 and allow us to have a base ship for infantry assaults.  The crew compliment beyond the embarked troops is only double a CPF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If the Russians keep putting more and more subs in the North Atlantic, you may get your dream EITS.
> 
> As I have said before, during the Cold War, I don't know a single CO who didn't say a quiet prayer of thanks to the Sea Gods whenever we had MPA flying in support.



I'd also say a quiet prayer to have the number of _VP_ aircraft and crews we had back then, too.  And...the endurance the Argus had.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd love to see the LRP fleet start getting a little more involved in the picture you're talking about here too, Cdn CPFs, SSKs, MH and LRPAs working and training together.  I know, I'm dreaming.   ;D



The west coast has the range, so at least those crews (both MH and LRP) get some co-op time semi-regularly.  I'm surprised that the east coast folks don't use it at least once a year.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Things have been pretty busy  8)


----------



## Fabius

With regards to the two different types of helicopters that various other forces use, they seem to use one as an ASW asset and the other as an anti surface asset.  It seems from comments here and elsewhere that the Cyclone's sensor suite easily supports both roles but I have not seen anything about the weapons suite for the Cyclone.  Anyone know if the Cyclone's have the same sort of anti surface capabilities (specifically air to surface missiles/rockets etc) as say the Wildcats that the RN is using?


----------



## Baz

Fabius said:
			
		

> With regards to the two different types of helicopters that various other forces use, they seem to use one as an ASW asset and the other as an anti surface asset.  It seems from comments here and elsewhere that the Cyclone's sensor suite easily supports both roles but I have not seen anything about the weapons suite for the Cyclone.  Anyone know if the Cyclone's have the same sort of anti surface capabilities (specifically air to surface missiles/rockets etc) as say the Wildcats that the RN is using?



It doesn't; a Stand Off Surface Weapon has been *discussed* for quite some time but was not a requirement for the Cyclone.

The issues of storage, handling, and launch of an armed helicopter shouldn't be underestimated; they would need to be overcome regardless of whether it was a Cyclone or a second helo.

I echo the statements of other's regarding a second helo; 12 Wing has a challenge over the next few years to generate dets for one helo.  The requirements for the Cyclone were specifically set out in order that one helo would not just be able to conduct the three primary missions (ASW, ASuW, and supporting air operations ie SAR, utility, etc) without significant re-role, but to be able to concurrently do them or switch while airborne.  The only divergence from that is if the aircraft is in the utility config with the mission kit largely removed and 22 troop seats fitted; this config was not in the original requirements but was added afterwards to exploit the capabilities of the aircraft, including the fact it has a tail ramp which most (possibly all, but I'm not doing the research) Maritime Helicopters do not have (not to be confused with Littoral Maneuver or "Marine" helicopters).


----------



## Fabius

Do the issues and challenges surrounding the storage, handling, and launch of an armed helicopter change much based on the munitions load out?  If the airframe and ship and crews are setup to mange those issues for the Mk46 (as an example) is it a fairly easy process (conceptually/logistically perhaps not administratively) to manage those same issues for stand off surface weapons?  
Honestly at this point I am starting to think that flexibility (which is what I think most people are ultimately trying to achieve with talk of a second helo) with almost all our platforms comes from the munitions load outs that are possible, backed by the sensor and C2 capabilities to employ the different munitions types.   What's lacking seems to be the munitions diversity needed for that flexibility.


----------



## Baz

Fabius said:
			
		

> Do the issues and challenges surrounding the storage, handling, and launch of an armed helicopter change much based on the munitions load out?  If the airframe and ship and crews are setup to mange those issues for the Mk46 (as an example) is it a fairly easy process (conceptually/logistically perhaps not administratively) to manage those same issues for stand off surface weapons?



Yes, they do.  At it's most basic (grossly oversimplified) a Mk-46 is going to go *clunk* onto the flight deck (we had one de-band, wasn't a warshot; the bands coming off can cause some serious damage, plus there is the nastiness known as otto fuel, and if it was a warshot...); a missile, if your flight deck procedures aren't right, goes right into the hangar (which, by the way, is between the two torp mags...)

A little bit apples to oranges, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire



			
				Fabius said:
			
		

> Honestly at this point I am starting to think that flexibility (which is what I think most people are ultimately trying to achieve with talk of a second helo) with almost all our platforms comes from the munitions load outs that are possible, backed by the sensor and C2 capabilities to employ the different munitions types.   What's lacking seems to be the munitions diversity needed for that flexibility.



Absolutely, and well understood by the right people.  The sensor capabilities are already there, the C2 is manageable, the flight deck procedures already exist amongst our allies; as always, what's missing is *will* and *money*.


To be honest, I agree that the Merlin / Wildcat or SH-60R / SH-60S pairings bring something extra to the fight; one as the sensor banging away and emitting, one as the shooter being really, really sneaky.  But, less *will* and less *money* for that exists in Canada, plus all of the issues already spoken to of building up, in effect, a whole new community.

Speaking of being sneaky... see https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-07-16/fire-scout-gains-osprey-radar  And from all accounts the Leonardo Osprey AESA radar puts the APS-143 to shame.  Right of the bat it is purported to be concurrent multi-mode...

Come to think of it, given the MQ-8C endurance is over 12 hours (amazing what getting rid 3 sets of self loading baggage plus their special needs, like seats, and replacing it with go-go juice will do), and the Osprey is the first real Airborne Surface Search AESA, plus Link-16 in addition to the existing TCDL, this is where the discussion logically goes next.  Give it an ESM and it could be the persistent surface search platform, plus fulfill the AEW role Underway speaks to, for countries that can't have either E-2Ds or Merlin Crowsnest.

Which then brings us back to the mission bay of the Type 26... these are the real discussions that happen around capability that is within the *will* and *money* of countries like Canada...

But I wouldn't know, because I've never been involved in discussions about embarked aviation requirements


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could even operate that off of the CCG ships that carry a similar helicopter


----------



## Underway

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm sure there will be tons of discussions during the VDQ sail and "lessons learned" stuff both during and after they get back.



Even before they left I've heard some great things.  VDQ is doing some stuff combined with ships sensors and the Cyclone that no one in the RCN has done yet.   Not to mention they have a third MASS launcher.  They are really taking the ball down the field hard from what I can tell with my limited view.

The only negative reviews of the Cyclone I have heard come from breaking in the shinny new "Cyclone Aircrews".  The former Sea King folks are old hats but the newer never sailed before Cyclone crews are getting a nice education in how a ship on operations really works, as well as navy culture. _(no we can't stop the pipes while you are on crew rest, learn to sleep through it ... if the helo is undergoing unplanned maintenance did you ever think to tell the PlansO before we piped flying stations?)  _

Jokes aside, it's just the natural friction when elements who have never worked together start working out the kinks.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> Come to think of it, given the MQ-8C endurance is over 12 hours (amazing what getting rid 3 sets of self loading baggage plus their special needs, like seats, and replacing it with go-go juice will do), and the Osprey is the first real Airborne Surface Search AESA, plus Link-16 in addition to the existing TCDL, this is where the discussion logically goes next.  Give it an ESM and it could be the persistent surface search platform, plus fulfill the AEW role Underway speaks to, for countries that can't have either E-2Ds or Merlin Crowsnest.



I drool at the potential this line of development is demonstrating.  The increase in SA could be in the orders of magnitude better just by adding two of these to a 4 ship TG.  An AEW variant could give a ship valuable minutes in dealing with a missile attack.  Given that the fastest missiles out there could conceivably allow a ship 30 seconds to respond from detection to impact, an extra 30 seconds lead time is gold for the ship to take countermeasures.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> I drool at the potential this line of development is demonstrating.  The increase in SA could be in the orders of magnitude better just by adding two of these to a 4 ship TG.  An AEW variant could give a ship valuable minutes in dealing with a missile attack.  Given that the fastest missiles out there could conceivably allow a ship 30 seconds to respond from detection to impact, an extra 30 seconds lead time is gold for the ship to take countermeasures.



The Osprey is the first lightweight AESA maritime radar... I'm not sure that in the fullness of time you would need an AEW variant.  I think a muture concurrent multi-mode radar could probably manage both surface and air search and tracking at the same time... the trick would be operationally optimizing the dwell for each.

I am interested in the Link-16 on the MQ-8C... I wonder if it allows remoting of the Link via TCDL, and let the ship go silent?


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> The Osprey is the first lightweight AESA maritime radar... I'm not sure that in the fullness of time you would need an AEW variant.  I think a muture concurrent multi-mode radar could probably manage both surface and air search and tracking at the same time... the trick would be operationally optimizing the dwell for each.



I agree.  AESA are generally flexible enough.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Osprey radar can already detect sea skimming targets with software to look for that sort of thing.  Volume search AEW is probably not possible though.  But over the horizon sea skimming AEW is really where you want to look for ship defence, as the ships volume air search can generally get the range for air targets above the horizon, at least in a self defence capacity.



			
				Baz said:
			
		

> I am interested in the Link-16 on the MQ-8C... I wonder if it allows remoting of the Link via TCDL, and let the ship go silent?



Comms is not my strongest subject but Link 16 has its own Tx/Rx system.  I don't know if you can use the Link itself to remote into a UAV and access control functions of the Link.  I _think_ it would most likely need the TCDL to do that, as that's the function of the TCDL.  You could most definitely set parameters before launch and just listen to Link tell you all it knows from the UAV, and the ship goes silent when she needs too.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> Comms is not my strongest subject but Link 16 has its own Tx/Rx system.  I don't know if you can use the Link itself to remote into a UAV and access control functions of the Link.  I _think_ it would most likely need the TCDL to do that, as that's the function of the TCDL.  You could most definitely set parameters before launch and just listen to Link tell you all it knows from the UAV, and the ship goes silent when she needs too.



I know TCDL quite well, and Link well enough... that's not what I was saying.  TCDL is just a UDP connection, so it is possible to completely control the Link-16 box via the directional TCDL connection.  Therefore it is *possible* that the ship could turn off it's Link-16 terminal completely and use the Fire Scout's terminal via TCDL.  It's possible, but I wonder if they are or intend to...

Editted to add: the same thing would be possible with the Block IV Aurora, but to my knowledge they aren't planning for it.  In that case you wouldn't use the Aurora as a remote terminal, it would be forwarding via JREAP over TCDL.  You *could* also use it's SATCOM data to provide a TCDL network connection for other users to the warfighter networks.


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> I know TCDL quite well, and Link well enough... that's not what I was saying.  TCDL is just a UDP connection, so it is possible to completely control the Link-16 box via the directional TCDL connection.  Therefore it is *possible* that the ship could turn off it's Link-16 terminal completely and use the Fire Scout's terminal via TCDL.  It's possible, but I wonder if they are or intend to...
> 
> Editted to add: the same thing would be possible with the Block IV Aurora, but to my knowledge they aren't planning for it.  In that case you wouldn't use the Aurora as a remote terminal, it would be forwarding via JREAP over TCDL.  You *could* also use it's SATCOM data to provide a TCDL network connection for other users to the warfighter networks.



Ah! I demonstrate my ignorance!  I understand what you are saying.  I could only speculate as to whether or not they intend to do such a thing, I suppose it depends on the tactical application of the Fire Scout and the LCS.  It seems like that's one of those things that gets looked at perhaps later for future models of the Fire Scout.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering how fast a task group likely moves, I wonder if a large part solar powered UAV managed from elsewhere might be able to sit far above the task force and provide information?


----------



## dimsum

Baz said:
			
		

> Editted to add: the same thing would be possible with the Block IV Aurora, but to my knowledge they aren't planning for it.  In that case you wouldn't use the Aurora as a remote terminal, it would be forwarding via JREAP over TCDL.  You *could* also use it's SATCOM data to provide a TCDL network connection for other users to the warfighter networks.



Don't give them any ideas!  Next thing you know, the Block 4 will be "BACN-lite"   :not-again:


----------



## Swampbuggy

Out of curiosity, since this thread has become fairly drone centric, does anyone know what made PUMA a more desirable fit than the S-100? I thought the VTOL characteristics of a rotary would’ve made it ideal to operate off any vessel, but particularly one with low deck space like an MCDV. And also, did the CCG proceed with a procurement for it after their trial?


----------



## dimsum

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, since this thread has become fairly drone centric, does anyone know what made PUMA a more desirable fit than the S-100? I thought the VTOL characteristics of a rotary would’ve made it ideal to operate off any vessel, but particularly one with low deck space like an MCDV. And also, did the CCG proceed with a procurement for it after their trial?



Mods - perhaps a thread split?


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering how fast a task group likely moves, I wonder if a large part solar powered UAV managed from elsewhere might be able to sit far above the task force and provide information?



Or maybe something lighter than air?

However, instead of reinventing the wheel, is it better to use the already existing MQ-4C Triton (which is what the Aussies decided); it already has all the core sensors for a high altitude (50,000 feet +) platform: MFAS AESA Radar, multi-spectral EO, ESM, and AIS plus the SATCOM, TCDL (for sensor download to cooperating units) and Link-16 (harder to get info for but implied) https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/Triton/Documents/pageDocuments/Triton_data_sheet.pdf.  Instead of trying to support the 24/7 persistent capability afloat you provide it from ashore... does need FOBs so might be more difficult for deployed ops for Canada?

The potential of the radar is eye-watering (https://slideplayer.com/slide/1460197/).


----------



## dimsum

Baz said:
			
		

> Or maybe something lighter than air?
> 
> However, instead of reinventing the wheel, is it better to use the already existing MQ-4C Triton (which is what the Aussies decided); it already has all the core sensors for a high altitude (50,000 feet +) platform: MFAS AESA Radar, multi-spectral EO, ESM, and AIS plus the SATCOM, TCDL (for sensor download to cooperating units) and Link-16 (harder to get info for but implied) https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/Triton/Documents/pageDocuments/Triton_data_sheet.pdf.  Instead of trying to support the 24/7 persistent capability afloat you provide it from ashore... does need FOBs so might be more difficult for deployed ops for Canada?
> 
> The potential of the radar is eye-watering (https://slideplayer.com/slide/1460197/).



The range of the Triton is such that for Australia at least, they're looking at the MOB in Adelaide and a FOB in Tindal, NT to cover their entire AOR.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Border Patrol still operates the Tethered Aerostat Radar System for air interdiction of drug planes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am underwhelmed by the continued unfulfilled promises of lighter than air ships. They are to affected by winds and weather


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, since this thread has become fairly drone centric, does anyone know what made PUMA a more desirable fit than the S-100? I thought the VTOL characteristics of a rotary would’ve made it ideal to operate off any vessel, but particularly one with low deck space like an MCDV. And also, did the CCG proceed with a procurement for it after their trial?



Have you seen a Puma launch?  You throw it into the wind.  With the Mk 1 Arm launching system. Deck space isn't an issue.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> Have you seen a Puma launch?  You throw it into the wind.  With the Mk 1 Arm launching system. Deck space isn't an issue.



No, I get that. It was the recovery I was wondering about.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am underwhelmed by the continued unfulfilled promises of lighter than air ships. They are to affected by winds and weather



So are (some/most) UAVs compared to a manned airplane.


----------



## JMCanada

First of all thanks to EyeInTheSky , FSTO and others for your understanding.

Regarding "balloons" or  Zeppelins I think that, apart from winds and weather, they may be good for static surveillance near the borders, however flying them above a naval unit or task group would be like a "show off" , "here I am" making the units be discovered earlier.

I would also like to talk about the Bell V-280 Valor, which could be developed, thanks to its long range and endurance, into a great AEW aircraft. 

Might it work as well as an ASW unit, based on land to cover the Artic (for about half a year)? Could use both surface radar and a diping sonar in remote areas (up to 1000-1400 km) from their base.

Hopefully it could be produced in Mirabel (QC).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

JMCanada said:
			
		

> I would also like to talk about the Bell V-280 Valor, which could be developed, thanks to its long range and endurance, into a great AEW aircraft.
> 
> Might it work as well as an ASW unit, based on land to cover the Artic (for about half a year)? Could use both surface radar and a diping sonar in remote areas (up to 1000-1400 km) from their base.



For the ASW asset part for the Arctic...I'd say no, there are better choices.  Fixed wing with better speed, altitude and load capabilities and much greater range.  Dipping sonars are great but so is being able to deploy a sonobuoy field, then climb back up to higher altitude and employing every other sensor you can, conduct comms.  Low flying also = higher fuel consumption rates which = less on station time (not usually a good thing).  MH, AFAIK, rarely if ever operate independently from the force they are attached to, whereas MPAs can work areas 'on their own' and cover some significant waterspace doing so.  280kts is fast compared to the SeaKing, let's say, but slow compared to a P-8 and slower than a P-3/CP-140.  MPAs like to climb to a high transit altitude for speed and fuel efficiency, one of the things the old Argus did not do very well.  Get there fast, sanitize as large an area as you can.  I'm personally a big fan of concurrent activity; drop down low to get your sono's in the water, at the same time you're running for MAD...able to use all your other sensors including the Mk1 eyeball.

Off the top of my head, the speed and range looks nice compared to most MHs, but I'm not sure we own anything that could house that airframe (thinking AOPS).


----------



## Sub_Guy

The only choice for Arctic ASW is a SSN.


----------



## Underway

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The only choice for Arctic ASW is a SSN.



Or not doing it.  Personally, not doing it is the best option.  What's an enemy sub going to do in the arctic aside from nuke us?  And realistically SSBNs are a second strike capability, designed so the enemy can't take them out in a first strike.  Even during the height of the the cold war the USSR generally kept their SSBN's in home arctic waters behind a layer of SSN's, SSK's and aircraft to protect them from NATO subs.

There is nothing in the Arctic economically valuable enough to protect, no trade lanes, no merchant ships, no geopolitically valuable targets (well one might consider the environment and the people valuable enough, but not from a military standpoint).  In the future that might change, but right now it's really not worth it.


----------



## Dale Denton

Underway said:
			
		

> Or not doing it.  Personally, not doing it is the best option.  What's an enemy sub going to do in the arctic aside from nuke us?  And realistically SSBNs are a second strike capability, designed so the enemy can't take them out in a first strike.  Even during the height of the the cold war the USSR generally kept their SSBN's in home arctic waters behind a layer of SSN's, SSK's and aircraft to protect them from NATO subs.



I would agree if this was in international waters, but its our backyard. Does it matter whether its a Russian SSN or SSBN? Either way, if we give up (or keep giving up) our responsibility over a territory, then is it really ours? Nobody should look at population levels in order to see if something is worth protecting. In that case, we shouldn't mind a Russian SSN floating off north shore PEI.

Buy RCN 2 Barracuda SSNs then 4 SSK Shortfins (V-Class replacements) and call it a day.


----------



## Gorgo

Would the Sôryû-class AIP type SSKs work just as good?  Lot cheaper than nukes.


----------



## Uzlu

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Would the Sôryû-class AIP type SSKs work just as good?  Lot cheaper than nukes.


Nothing is better than nuclear for under-the-ice patrols.  If non-nuclear AIP was as good, the Americans, the Russians, and the Brits would have switched by now to non-nuclear AIP.  For under-the-ice patrols, underwater operation is going to be limited by the oxygen supply.  A nuclear reactor can be used to dissociate seawater.  In theory, non-nuclear AIP can be used for limited under-the-ice patrols.  But I do not think any non-nuclear AIP submarine has made this attempt.  

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/192/meredith.pdf


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:
			
		

> What's an enemy sub going to do in the arctic aside from nuke us?



In 'peacetime', make compelling territorial claims based on going there and planting flags on the sea floor?

Arktika 2007 (Russian: Российская полярная экспедиция "Арктика-2007") was a 2007 expedition in which Russia performed the first ever crewed descent to the ocean bottom at the North Pole, as part of research related to the 2001 Russian territorial claim, one of many territorial claims in the Arctic,[1] made possible, in part, because of Arctic shrinkage. As well as dropping a titanium tube containing the Russian flag, the submersibles collected specimens of Arctic flora and fauna and apparently recorded video of the dives. The "North Pole-35" (abbreviated as "NP-35") manned drifting ice station was established. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika_2007


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In 'peacetime', make compelling territorial claims based on going there and planting flags on the sea floor?
> 
> Arktika 2007 (Russian: Российская полярная экспедиция "Арктика-2007") was a 2007 expedition in which Russia performed the first ever crewed descent to the ocean bottom at the North Pole, as part of research related to the 2001 Russian territorial claim, one of many territorial claims in the Arctic,[1] made possible, in part, because of Arctic shrinkage. As well as dropping a titanium tube containing the Russian flag, the submersibles collected specimens of Arctic flora and fauna and apparently recorded video of the dives. The "North Pole-35" (abbreviated as "NP-35") manned drifting ice station was established.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika_2007



That's not compelling in any way.   Based on the UN Convention of the seas which requires scientific data to sort out your arctic claims.  Arctic claims will be sorted out peacefully and within the rule of law, despite a oligarch funded propaganda mission.  And it wasn't done with a military submarine either but a civilian research submersible (some call it a mini sub but that's a misnomer).  A submersible and a submarine are very different things.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The rule of law only works with Xi and Putin if they get their own way.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

"based on the UN *anything*" and "will be sorted out peacefully" don't leave me feeling very convinced, honestly.

There is a potential for conflict over the resources;  resources that are becoming more and more scare and expensive.  Maybe not today, or tomorrow...Russia is far more capable of operating in the north, in numbers, than Canada is, IMO.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting article from a Captain in the USMC arguing for more helicopters and fewer Amphibs, Rigid Raiders, LCUs and LCACs.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018-10/helicopters-best-enable-forced-entry-sea

The argument is that only helicopters have the range, speed and maneuverability to successfully land troops.   They permit their host platforms to stay out of range and out of sight over the horizon.

They can land behind or beside the enemy, are less predictable, can debus their cargoes closer, and can cycle between the host platform and the objective more frequently than any of the alternatives.

Amphibs are too slow and predictable, as are RHIBs, and require the hosts to move to close to shore.  The troops have to debus at the surf line in the face of enemy fire.

LCUs and LCACs can move heavy cargo but only once a beach has been secured and the bullets have stopped flying.

The Captain argues for fewer LPDs and more LPHs with more helos.

I suggest, based on the Captain's prescription that this has knock on implications that could affect a Canadian BHS.

The first thing is that any ship that is built does not need to be built to manage the close approach threats of the littoral combat zone.  It needs to be a blue water ship.

The second thing is that it needs a flat deck and a capacious hangar for multiple helicopters.

The helicopters could either fly directly to the objective or could bounce forward from other ships in the fleet with large helodecks and/or HIFR capability acting as FRPs

Assuming that the host isn't going to enter in the battlezone and that heavy equipment needs to be lifted ashore when the situation is sufficiently quiet then LCMs/LCUs, slow as they are, would still provide a useful capability and so a well deck would also be a useful but not imperative addition.

My suggestion is that LCMs/LCUs will find a home working with the Afloat Support Bases the US Navy is working towards.  Those bases are constructed largely of ships built to civilian standards and include  floodable ships like the Expeditionary Mobile Base and the Expeditionary Transfer Dock both of which derive from the civilian Alaska-class VLCCs. Likewise the US are using the MV Ocean Trader, a converted RoRo, as a Special Forces support facility - with a deck and hangars big enough for the Osprey and the Sea Stallion.

In my view, Canada would get good mileage out of commissioning another pair of civilian ship conversions with large warehousing capabilities, compatible with the full range of Canada's current fleet of helicopters and current range of weaponry.  Built to similar standards as the Asterix at something like 500-800 MCAD each, possibly manned by civilian mariners, I believe that they would be of great value to any government both domestically and diplomatically for military and civil missions.

We don't have to build ships with the ability to storm ashore to be able to make ourselves useful.


----------



## Kirkhill

Big Civilian Ships










How The U.S. Navy Turned An Oil Tanker Into A Helicopter Sea Base
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-the-u-s-navy-turned-an-oil-tanker-into-a-helicopte-1658743256






Exclusive Photo: USNS Montford Point, The Navy's New Sea Base
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/exclusive-photo-usns-montford-point-the-navys-new-sea-1567333241





http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21261/americas-elusive-special-operations-mothership-is-packing-stealth-speedboats


----------



## Baz

To be fair, the Lewis B. Puller supports your argument well, but the Montford Point doesn't.  The latter is really to provide additional connector to bring afloat equipment and supplies at of the maritime prepositioning ships in the abscence of a pier head.

I continually am surprised in the depth the US afloat prepositioning program has.  I had the fortune of meeting a USN Captain who commanded a prepositioning squadron before he came to NATO at SHAPE during an exercise.  The ability of the prepositioning force to go over the beach (unopposed) with it's own lighterage, even without Montford Point and her sister, is truly impressive.  They also have deployable jetties and a ship whose sole purpose is to transfer bulk POL from tankers over the beach by a deployable pipeline.

I would make the observation that the USNI article is another part of the quite open discussion they are having about the balance of transport helicopter, air support, equipment, assualt watercraft, supplies, and  troops they need.  It is a long term plan as once they decide that balance they then need to acquire the right assault ship force.

The fact that Anerica and Tripoli were built without well decks, but the next in class has them, indicates the Captains views are not the only in the mix.

The Royal Marines are also making the same decisions on a smaller scale, with Ocean being in effect replaced by a strike carrier, Prince of Wales.  Thankfully for them they didn't lose Albion and Bulwark like looked possible a year ago, or they would be forced to do it all be helo as those ships are really the heart of the water borne assault force.

As for Canada, nothwithstanding what Leadmark may imply, I think our contribution will be at best a few containers on the "JSS" and maybe a few vehicles on 1 or 2 AOPS backed up by a handful of repurposed Cyclones (at theast they have the tail ramp)... and that really only for the humanitarian missions as it would be laughable to try to go over the beach with that.  As I've said before, it's kind of sad considering our GDP and position on the G7...


----------



## JMCanada

Following your words ... considering our GDP and position on the G7... we are not the ones with higher GDP nor the ones with more population. Nor should we have big problem to defend sovereignty on our territory, just in the Arctic. 

Being the case we don't have so many resources, both in terms of money and human ones. And being the Arctic issue treated in other thread, mostly requiring long-endurance submarines (nuclear or AIP). Up to what extent should we need an amphibious force?

I believe Canada should be ready to do what it has done in the past: been able to support our allies ... even before the US enters the conflict. 

Of course, having some (small) amph. capacity is nice, specially when relieving on humanitarian crisis. But I would not focus too much on beach deployments, which - as the article states - are better performed with helos. Instead we should be ready for "harbour deployments" and on top of that, to protect trade and convoys, to maintain the supply chain of our allies at the other side of the Atlantic or the Pacific.

If these are safeguarded, then our (land) troops may be deployed and disembarked safely onto ally ports where they will join their forces for further  operations.

Therefore, to keep the seas open, not only a series of surface combatants may be needed, but also ASW & AEW helos or UAVs , submarines, MCM vessels and specially the capabilities to mass-produce more of them should the conflict extend on time.


----------



## Baz

I respectfully disagree.  At the risk of going around the same buoy again as these forums have in the past, I will just say I am in agreement with the stated policy of the RCN, as published in Leadmark 2050 page 47-48. However, I have no confidence Canada will acquire the ship(s) as described, nor the required helicopters or shore connectors, nor the needed operational skill set.

Much like the discussions here, it's just words.  Which are then hedged, much as you've done by saying we don't have *that* big of a threat  or *that* big of a GDP.  See the Australian example; they are *not* a G7 country.

In many ways we prefer to ride on the coattails of our allies.  Like an unpredictable horse they may feel the need to turn and snap at us at some point...

By the way, the author of that article is a US Marine captain, not USN; ie a field grade officer.  He is just orofessionally providing his opinion to the discussion, not stating current doctrine or a full staff assessment.

Finally, for those that may not have read it, is the applicable section of Leadmark 2050:

Such measures will improve the future fleet’s agility and capacity to respond to disasters at home and abroad. However, recent operations by the RCN and allied navies have highlighted a pressing need for the Canadian Armed Forces to consider the acquisition of a dedicated peace-support ship to meet the unique demands of HA/DR. 

Even in relatively permissive environments, such operations typically unfold in chaotic conditions, often hampered by extensively damaged—or entirely absent—transportation networks and infrastructure. Such a ship would act as a seabase, with features that include a substantial sealift capacity to move personnel, vehicles, force logistics and humanitarian materiel into theatre. There would be equipment to embark/disembark cargo as well as transfer cargo at sea, and deck space to accommodate and operate medium- or heavy-lift aircraft and landing craft. This would act as the ship/shore connectors to project, sustain and support a force ashore, as well as to recover it. The internal space could be dedicated to a joint headquarters, civil-military coordination centre, as well as medical and dental facilities and accommodations for evacuees.

Such a vessel would likely be among the most heavily used assets in the future Canadian Armed Forces inventory. It would be capable of anticipatory pre-positioning or rapid deployment, be able to carry large volumes of humanitarian cargo, emergency vehicles and related supplies, and be equipped with facilities to act as a floating civil-military coordination centre. With these features, a peace-support ship would be an ideal platform for joint action across a range of relatively permissive expeditionary scenarios.

Situations where the ship would be used include the evacuation of non-combatants from zones of incipient conflict, as well as support to forces ashore during a post-conflictrecovery or stabilization period. Moreover, such a vessel would likely emerge as the principal Canadian Armed Forces defence diplomacy asset. It would be deployed routinely to regions of strategic interest to Canada, with a range of personnel and joint capabilities to strengthen regional capacities and strategic partnerships. More broadly, it could conduct goodwill missions with other federal agencies and non-governmental organizations.

Footnote:
 Navies have made significant contributions to international disaster relief operations. These include the Indian Ocean post tsunami, 2004; Orleans post Hurricane Katrina, 2005; Haiti, post earthquake, 2010; Burma, post Cyclone Nargis, 2008; Padang, post earthquake, 2009; Pakistan, post monsoon flooding, 2010; Japan, post earthquake / tsunami, 2011; and The Philippines, post Typhoon Haiyan, 2014. According to a recent RAND analysis, naval HA/DR operations are especially useful in the broader Asia-Pacific not only because of the essentially maritime character of those theatres, but also because the region suffered more than half of the world’s major natural disasters.


----------



## Baz

Afterthought: the ship envisioned by Leadmark could absolutely and probably should be a converted commercial vessel.  It describes a non-opposed over the beach capability.  Nobody (well maybe very few) think Canada should be able to kick in the door.

But what the USMC Captain is discussing is the best force to conduct opposed littoral maneuver; he is talking about kicking in the door.

The reason Canada needs this capability is because it is likely, and has already happened in Haiti, that the RCN will be involved in some type of operation where the infrastructure is destroyed and or unavailable and you need to get lots of stuff ashore.  You can't do that with helicopters, you can't do that with transport aircraft (esp as if the port facilities are unavailable it is likely the airports will be unavailable as well); you need big ships stuffed with real things and the connectors to get ashore. You also need helicopters to get smaller and less stuff farther away quickly.

On a side note, there was an element in the army that helped kill SCTF.  The argument, and if I had enough energy I could provide open source citations, was that anything less than kicking in the door wasn't worth it.  So they were saying that we needed the equivalent of an MEU embarked in a ARG... which, for Canada and most nations outside the US, is ridiculous.


----------



## Baz

Another afterthought: what do Canadians think (I know, they don't think about it) will happen if an earthquake takes out the infrastructure in lower mainland BC?  We'll ask the Americans to bring in stuff over the beach, supported by countries that have the capability like Australia, Japan, and South Korea (as it will take some time for Europe to show up).  And important in that stuff will be equipment to fix some jetties, and start to push a route up the Fraser, while 1CER helps CN/CP push a route down the Fraser.

And which beaches will have priority?  Those near Vancouver or the ones near Seattle?

At least if we had one peace-support ship, like the RCN envisages, with surface over the beach connectors, we could run down to San Fran or LA and unload some of that military stuff, load up on needed stuff, and come back and push it over the beach ourselves.  Which may make others more inclined to help us.

How many helicopters would it take to move enough stuff to feed Vancouver?  By my recollection we had around 300 at one point for Katrina, and according to the press accounts it still wasn't enough.


----------



## FSTO

I was in PRO for OP TOUCAN where we acted as the fueling support unit for the forces ashore. Basically we'd fill the ship up with fuel and stores in Darwin and then drop anchor in Dili Harbour. Then Aussie landing craft would embark fuel trucks and bring them out to us (I think there was 2 trucks and trailers per LC) to transfer the fuel and stores. We had two landing craft but they were such garbage that we only used them once. 

Having a well deck, a decent LC and room for more helicopters would have made us a force to be reckoned with when it comes to HA/DR. With the destructive power being displayed by todays Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones it stands to reason that ships like Australia's HMAS CANBERRA will become more and more needed.

Sadly our political class and military leadership seems to be unable to see a way towards requiring this essential asset.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention the Federal Fleet Service model shows us a way forward both in procurement/refit of such a vessel and crewing. The plus side of that crewing model is that it is also a perfect place to train the next generation of Canadian Merchant Marine, so you can ship pilots and Masters as needed.


----------



## JMCanada

Thanks BAZ for your insightful and instructive replies. I can only agree with most of you have said. 

You have shown me there is a gap for one or two HA/DR ships, as to develop the skills, including shore connectors (lcu,lcm) needed when infrastructures are broken. And that gap should be filled, i agree.

Yet the type of vessel is to be decided, i think that the Mistral class would play well the role with no need to go for Canberra class.

Beyond that, I wanted to suggest that, should the scarce resources allow for that, should Canada reach the 2% defence budget target, other gaps are also to be filled such as renovation of the MCM ships or the increase of the submarine fleet. These are not so much personnel demanding and therefore may be sustained more easily on a long-term.


----------



## Baz

Remembering that


> "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."


(attributed to Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980 at https://www.military-quotes.com/forum/logistics-quotes-t511.html)...

I found https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/ship-to-shore-logistics/uk-amphibious-doctrine/ very useful to understand what is actually required to come over the beach in order to rebuild a port facility.  It equally applies to post opposed landings and unopposed or HR/DA ops.

I used to be of the opinion that some form of 2nd tier LHA should be what we should aspire to, my preference being Canberra but including Mistral, but as of late I've changed more to Chris' line of thought.  Which doesn't change the fact we should have snapped up the Russian Mistrals when we had the chance...

My proposal starts with what Atlantic Conveyor was transformed into to support air ops before she was dispatched by the Argentinians, but closer to what Contender Bezant was possibly:





Atlantic Conveyor as converted to air ops




Contender Bezant; notice the container cranes.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/

It also includes the concept of a stern ramp onto lighterage; ie no well deck:






> Maritime Prepositioning Force (Enhanced) ship USNS Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham's stern ramp is resting on lighter platforms, forming a roll-on/roll-off discharge facility to unload Navy vehicles. Rebecca Rogers photo


https://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2003/April/prepositioned.htm

Finally, it includes the concept of how Federal Fleet Service has obtained and operates the Asterix; ie civilian crew and master with a military detachment (including a lot of loggies).

Obtain two Ro-Ros with stern ramps (big ones!).  Converted the container deck to a flat landing pad, but still with the capability to put containers on top.  Include an elevator to get down to the top vehicle deck so you can store helos down there, and maybe even use it as a hanger for maintenance.  Include one travelling crane which move along tracks at the port and starboard side of said deck, and includes fold down wings to extend over the side.  Build in modular spaces for operations, berthing for an embarked force, and hospital. 

Normal loadout would be modular space, hangar, and vehicles and equipment below, one spot flight deck, say two spots unusable as they have embarked lighterage, and the rest containers.

When you have to go over the beach, some of the lighterage is used as a stern "jetty," and the rest is used as the ship to shore connector.  As soon as you put the lighterage over the side you free up helo spots for more intense operations.  Containers can be hoisted over the side onto lighterage.

When in protected waters but no shore facilities are (yet) available, you can bring STUFT (ships taken up from trade) Ro-Ros along side and they can use your lighterage to put down their ramp and unload, and your crane to pick containers of, stage them, and then over the side onto lighterage.

When you obtain jetty space but not yet have the infrastructure up to move containers use shore cranes you can put them over the side yourself, and you can bring another container ship alongside you and move theirs.

When container cranes are available you load and unload just like a normal Ro-Ro.

Finally, if you want to go air heavy, get rid of the lighterage before deploying, carry no containers topside and all your air stores, hangars, and accommodation below, and have 4-5 spots topside.  Park the crane out of the way back by the bridge.

For completeness, *possible* include two RAS spots , one each side immediately forward of the bridge.  Or may the crane could be used to erect RAS gear; an expert on RAS would have to weigh in.

To me, one of these on each coast would give us a very flexible asset we could bring to any littoral ops, and then we wouldn't just show up.  We'd have a credible asset to bring to the mix.


----------



## Kirkhill

Point taken on the Commander Bezant and the lack of the need for the well deck, Baz.

A further, related, model for consideration - rather than incorporating a well deck - is the LASH or Lighter Aboard Ship concept.  The principle difference between the Commander Bezant and the LASH is that some or all of the containers are replaced by barges.  The barges can be towed, self-powered or a mix.  The other difference is that the gantry cranes would extend out over the stern and allow the deck cargo to be lowered directly on to the water abaft the stern.












> AK 1005 Austral Rainbow
> AK 1005 (T-AK 2046) Austral Rainbow, was [apparently until mid-1998] one of three ships currently under charter to support the U.S. Air Force's ammunition prepositioning mission. Austral Rainbow is a LASH, or lighter aboard ship, vessel built in 1972. It is 820 feet long, 100 feet wide and has a deadweight tonnage of 41,000 long tons. In its current configuration, Austral Rainbow can carry up to 100 20-foot containers, 74 LASH barges and two pusher boats. The two pusher boats are used to move barges which have been unloaded into the water. Each barge can carry as much as 250 long tons of cargo. The ship sails at a speed of 16 knots. Austral Rainbow is currently prepositioned in Diego Garcia.



https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/tak-1005.htm

The ship itself is not the answer but the deck equipment may be part of the answer - an extension (if you will) of the Commander Bezant solution.

And by the way: I too am a fan of "thinkdefence".


----------



## Kirkhill

Nudder thought:

The type of ship we are talking about now could also be used by an outfit like Federal for commercial purposes.  An ice strengthened variant would be able to assist in strengthening communications links in the north and reducing the cost of shipping.  Basically an extension of the King's Highways which, since at least the time of Darius, has provided both commercial and military value to nations that invest in them.

The value of the ship, of course, is that it is possible to pick up the Highway and take it with you wherever you want to go. 

So - a threefer?  Splitting the costs amongst DND, Transport Canada, Industry Canada, Northern Development?

Supporting Arctic Development
Supporting Canadian Jobs (operating the vessels, building the vessels, spin-off jobs from enhancing commercial opportunities in the north)
Providing a service that would permit the CAF to deploy internationally.

The commercial models would be the Point Class RoRos (very similar, if not identical, to the Cragside/Ocean Trader) operated by Foreland Shipping under a 22 year merchant carrier charter with the stipulation 





> "Four of the Ro-Ro ships are permanently contracted to the MoD with the other two at notice for MoD tasking. For the two ships at notice, one can be accessed in 20 days and the other in 30 days."[8]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-class_sealift_ship


----------



## JMCanada

Happy new year to everyone.
And now an interesting link to an article about Australian aircraft capabilities reached onboard their Canberra class LHDs. 
I wish you like it.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/12/ship-shape-army-amphibious-air-operations-cleared-for-duty/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sigh nice to see the 'Adult" countries doing well.


----------



## CBH99

I know this has probably already been mentioned quite a few times in other threads, so forgive me...

But I was like 80% sure Australia operated Black Hawks, in addition to their other types?  

If the MRH-90 has been such a pain to get to this point, and is bloody expensive as both an airframe & in terms of maintenance... wouldn't the Seahawk be a good choice, given they already operate Black Hawks?


I'll probably edit this when I settle in a bit later tonight, just something that struck me.  Either way, a country that very much has a vision, a focus,  and a willpower to accomplish specific defense goals.  Adulting quite well.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I know this has probably already been mentioned quite a few times in other threads, so forgive me...
> 
> But I was like 80% sure Australia operated Black Hawks, in addition to their other types?
> 
> If the MRH-90 has been such a pain to get to this point, and is bloody expensive as both an airframe & in terms of maintenance... wouldn't the Seahawk be a good choice, given they already operate Black Hawks?



They do.  The Aus Army operates Black Hawks, MRH-90s and Tigers, the RAN operates SH-60R Seahawks, MRH-90s and may still be operating some S-70 Seahawks.  

Speaking of pain, good to know they finally (?) sorted out their issues with the Tiger.  It was a comedy of errors - from Wiki, first delivery was in 2004, end of delivery in 2010, planned FOC in 2011, actual FOC in 2016, and they're going to be replaced in mid-2020s partly b/c of maintenance cost and having to send parts to Europe for maintenance.


----------



## Gorgo

Since we're now talking about the amphibious carriers that the Australians have, how about getting an Izumo-class DDH/CVH or two to act as flagships of both fleets?  Crew manning for the ship itself is about the same as any Iroquois-class DDH and if we get them with the modifications to fly F-35Bs, they could serve as extra decks for allied forces to use when necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_helicopter_destroyer


----------



## Cloud Cover

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Happy new year to everyone.
> And now an interesting link to an article about Australian aircraft capabilities reached onboard their Canberra class LHDs.
> I wish you like it.
> 
> http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/12/ship-shape-army-amphibious-air-operations-cleared-for-duty/



Something about the Aussies that is humorous are the endless claims of "most complex in the world"; "best in the world"; "biggest in the world" etc.  Is this a "Down-Under" compensation issue?


----------



## RDBZ

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Something about the Aussies that is humorous are the endless claims of "most complex in the world"; "best in the world"; "biggest in the world" etc.  Is this a "Down-Under" compensation issue?



To be fair, he’s comparing NH-90 and tiger in ADF service compared to other forces.  The ADF probably has pushed a lot harder than most of those countries.  There were some interesting statistics on equipment availability in the German armed forces recently.


----------



## Baz

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Something about the Aussies that is humorous are the endless claims of "most complex in the world"; "best in the world"; "biggest in the world" etc.  Is this a "Down-Under" compensation issue?



I don't think it is limited to them.

[quote author=Commander Royal Canadian Navy September 9 2018 on Facebook]
Bravo Zulu to the crew of CH-148 Cyclone or call-sign “Avalanche,” for being a force multiplier during Operation REASSURANCE on HMCS Ville de Québec. This is the first-ever ship deployment of the Cyclone and it is proving to be the world’s best maritime helicopter! The “Avalanche” has been conducting surface and sub-surface surveillance, and search and rescue, during the Canadian Armed Forces’ contribution to NATO assurance and deterrence measures in Central and Eastern Europe. #RCNavy #RCAF #WeAreNato
[/quote]
https://www.facebook.com/1781413172109914/posts/2094096240841604/


----------



## JMCanada

I know there is no intention to go for a 2nd MH. Nevermind, this is a nice article (would say it's propaganda also) about RN's Wildcats. 
Not fully understand why they do not fit dipping sonar like Koreans do.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-focus-the-wildcat-multi-role-helicopter-in-service-with-the-royal-navy/


----------



## IRepoCans

Seems like the RN is on route to (re-)acquiring littoral vessels to enable and support special forces / Royal Marines:

Click Here


> *The UK is set to acquire two Littoral Strike Ships with the ability to launch troops and their equipment via helicopters and boats.*
> 
> Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has confirmed that the UK will purchase the vessels. Referring to the new new Littoral Strike Ships, Williamson said:
> 
> _“These globally deployable, multi-role vessels will be able to conduct a wide range of operations, from crisis support to war-fighting.
> 
> They would support out future Commando force. They will be forward deployed at exceptionally high readiness and able to respond at a moments notice, bringing the fight from sea to land._
> 
> More on link...



I wonder how this would come about given the money juggling the MoD have been up to as of late and the reductions made to the Royal Marines (and their enabling elements) over the past 20-30 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

This is the bit that caught my eye (highlighted text) -



> Britain will buy and adapt cargo ships or ferries to bring two new vessels into service which could rapidly respond to a crisis and carry out a range of operations, the Defence Secretary has announced.
> 
> ....
> 
> "These globally deployable, multi-role vessels would be able to conduct a wide range of operations from crisis support to war fighting," he said.
> 
> "They would support our future Commando force, our world-renowned Royal Marines - they will be forward deployed at exceptionally high readiness and able to respond at a moment's notice - bringing the fight from the sea to land."
> 
> ....
> 
> It is understood the Ministry of Defence* (MoD) is considering using cargo ships or ferries, with the existing hulls converted and ultimately able to deploy assets from them including fast boats, landing craft, helicopters and special forces.*



See Maersk, Point Class, Ocean Trader, US, Davie, Asterix.


----------



## FSTO

Ó Donnghaile said:
			
		

> Seems like the RN is on route to (re-)acquiring littoral vessels to enable and support special forces / Royal Marines:
> 
> Click Here
> I wonder how this would come about given the money juggling the MoD have been up to as of late and the reductions made to the Royal Marines (and their enabling elements) over the past 20-30 years.


Maybe the MOD is waking up to the fact that RN and its Marines are the best bang for their defence buck?


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> Maybe the MOD is waking up to the fact that RN and its Marines are the best bang for their defence buck?



Re-discovering the policy of Alfred the Great, Hakluyt, Henry VIII and Samuel Pepys.

Not to mention the men that took the British Army into the European Wars of the 18th Century

Field Marshal de la Rochefoucauld
Maj Gen Jean Ligonier
Maj Gen Jean Cavalier

And in Canada, Britain's Lt Governor in Acadia, Jean-Paul Mascarene.

All four of them refugees from Louis XIVs France after the 1685 revocation of the edict of Nantes with the concurrent Dragonades, and from the area around Nimes outside of Marseilles.  Most of them escaped to Britain by way of Geneva and Holland.

Rochefoucauld was responsible for adding 10 regiments of foot in 1739/40, just before his death (44th to 53rd) - all of them brigaded to the Navy as marines.   That represented some 25% of the line infantry.

Curiously, for Canadians, this activity was concurrent with the activity of the Gallican priest, Abbe Le Loutre in Acadia, which ultimately led to the relocation of the Acadians. 

Sorry for the ramble.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The artist image of the RN ship looks quite similar to the Irving design they used to try and push Davie underwater, which was ( I gather) based on the US Point Class.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Very different tasks though than the Astreix. I still take a Mistral over it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Half a loaf is better than none.  And even if the Mistral is baguette rather than a proper loaf I will still take a Bun over a non-existant baguette.

Floating warehouses with flat spots and loading docks that can be relocated easily while flying the Canadian flag are useful.  Off Newfoundland, in Cologne or Singapore or heading to Norway.

These beasts don't need the number of bodies the Mistrals and LPD(H)s require.


----------



## Dale Denton

Agreed^. 

Perhaps 4 arctic-ish versions of that support ship instead of 1 giant Diefenbaker? Plausible?

- Use it off the coast of where-ever else in the winter months. 

- Use it to deliver supplies or relief to communities in the North. 

- Floating hospital that makes a couple arctic tours up there. Paint one white and make it a permanent hospital ship

- Throw a SeaRam on it with some small arms and a couple UUVs for a sovereignty side benefit. 

- Use it like a Point Class for sneaky stuff or disaster relief


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mistral has a base crew about 160, that can expand depending on operations.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Im not sure the RCN could contain themselves to 160. I am sure that the thing would be commanded by nothing less than a Captain (N), and then there is a Commodore staff to be embarked (yes, they would do that).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

set up their cubicles in the boat well  8)


----------



## Cloud Cover

Yes, to deal with the flood of work.


----------



## Kirkhill

More of the same:  Wet-lease Charter - 300 days per year at sea



> First proposal for the Royal Navy’s new Littoral Strike Ships unveiled
> 
> British risk advisory company Prevail Partners has unveiled its proposal for the Royal Navy’s two new littoral strike ships which were announced by the UK defense secretary earlier this month.
> 
> Prevail say their multi role vessel (MRV) was designed as a mobile logistic and helicopter base, enabling nations to project power and carry out special forces missions. The MRV is also capable of serving as an emergency response platform.
> 
> This is in line with what the UK defense ministry envisions the ships should be, globally deployable, multi-role vessels capable of performing both crisis support and war-fighting missions.
> 
> Announcing the potential acquisition of the ships, UK defense secretary Gavin Williamson said the ships would form part of two littoral strike groups complete with escorts, support vessels and helicopters. One would be based East of Suez in the Indo-Pacific and one based West of Suez in the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Baltic.
> 
> The ships could join the Royal Navy aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and Bay-class landing ships in one amphibious task force should need be, the defense minister noted.
> 
> The Prevail MRV is offered as a turnkey solution for “300 operational days a year” on a wet-lease charter. As explained in the proposal, the vessel would be owned and operated by Prevail and partners. The Royal Navy would just need to embark its forces and equipment for operations.
> 
> “Prevail’s team will build, crew, manage, and sustain the MRV for over 300 operational days every year. Prevail will also integrate specialist capabilities such as USVs or UAVs into the ship,” the company said in its proposal.
> 
> The vessel would have a flight deck capable of supporting CH47s, Super Pumas and other military helicopters. It would also enable amphibious operations with the capability to offload heavy vehicles via mexeflote.
> 
> As advertised, the MRV would measure 209 meters in length, have a range of over 10,000 nautical miles, and provide space for an embarked force of 400.
> 
> Prevail says the first ship could be ready for operations in 2020.















https://navaltoday.com/2019/02/25/first-proposal-for-the-royal-navys-new-littoral-strike-ships-unveiled/

A related link for reference sake

http://thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26599/this-containerized-missile-launcher-could-give-almost-any-ship-short-range-air-defenses


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I await Davie to offer a similar ship


----------



## Cloud Cover

I have to ask how  can such a large chopper land on a ship that has a huge superstructure crossing the full width of the deck> aft of the landing pad so in other words steering towards a rotorcraft that is hovering. Unless the ship is not moving I foresee tense moments... edit: note added top view. The designer is Prevail Partners. Link to brochure with many additional interesting images, configurations and claims: https://prevail-partners.com/mrv/


----------



## Cloud Cover

More on the concept of the Littoral Strike Ship (Prevail Partners Design). It might be this is gaining traction in the UK (despite the country appearing to implode over Brexit):
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-closer-look-at-the-littoral-strike-ship-concept/


----------



## MilEME09

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> More on the concept of the Littoral Strike Ship (Prevail Partners Design). It might be this is gaining traction in the UK (despite the country appearing to implode over Brexit):
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-closer-look-at-the-littoral-strike-ship-concept/



We shall take two, you know, for disaster relief assistance around the world........totally not for transporting a battlegroup


----------

