# A Dream Navy?



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Aug 2010)

Well, it is now official, after almost 35 years as a naval officer, I have now been released from the Supplementary Reserve as my 10 years have run out.

To celebrate, I thought I could start a little game here. "Leadmark" mentioned (I don't know how manny times) the need for general purpose naval forces. I do not believe that's what we have now. So here is the game: The current fleet of 33 vessels accounts for 4402 seaman (I'm leaving out the air dets -  source: DND website). If you had your "druthers", using current ships from around the world, what dream fleet would you have using the same number of seaman (plus or minus 100)? Not perfect but, the gauge for crew size will be Wikepedia. And the air departments are excluded.

I'll go first: My Dream fleet would be:


Type :	Class :	Quantity :	Crew Size :	Total Crew :
SSK	Type 212	6	27	162
DDG	Daring	12	180	2160
Command	Absalon	2	169	338
LHD	Mistral	2	160	320
LPD(A)	Largs Bay	2	59	118
Aops	Aops	4	40	160
MCM	Lerici	6	47	282
AOR	Berlin (Type 702)	3	139	417
CVL	Cavour	1	450	450

Grand Total: 4407 personnel manning 38 ships.

I look forward to reading other people's point of view.


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Aug 2010)

If all your numbers are correct, it seems to suggest that we're not a very efficient navy in terms of tonne of ship per sailor.  The fleet you've described has capabilities that we don't have at all now, obviously.

Is the small size of the Daring-class crew entirely a result of automation (etc.) in the ship, or is there a capability gap compared to a CPF or 280?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Aug 2010)

I did something similar back in 2005, but if we are using those numbers I will think of something. I did not realize we were down to 4400 sailors, that seems a little low.

http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/28345.0.html


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Aug 2010)

All of the ships I describe have a much higher level of automation than our current ships, which explains most of the lower manning levels. 

The gap in capability in the Daring class destroyers favours the Daring class.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Aug 2010)

Ex-D: The number of seaman is for those actually on commissioned ships, not the whole Navy. I included the MCDV's even though manned by reservists. And the numbers are for all the 33 serving ships being fully manned with the number of seaman they should have according to the DND web site.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Aug 2010)

Here is my take on OGBs Dream Navy.

*Type :      Class :      Quantity :      Crew Size :      Total Crew :*
DDG             Hobart       5                   180                   900
FFG              Nansen      12                 120                   1440
FFL              Thetis         2                   60                     120
Flag             Absalon      2                   170                   340
SSK             U214          6                   27                     162 
OPV            Svalbard     6                   70                      420
AOR            Wave          4                  102                    408
MCM           Styrso         7                  16                      112
LPD            Galicia         2                  115                    230
HOSP         Argus          2                  130                    260
                                  [48]                                         [4392]

Data used was from: http://www.naval-technology.com/       

Updated to correct math.
My reasoning for several of these classes is they provide a nice backup for other ships I chose. Nansen has AAD capability in case Hobart unavailable. Absalon has some amphib capability as well asa secondary frigate role, so it can backstop the Galicia class, Nansen and Thetis classes.


----------



## Tetragrammaton (5 Aug 2010)

Unfortunately, I simply do not know enough to come up with a ideal fleet for the Canadian Navy.

I was, however, fortunate enough to have a look around the HDMS Absalon this summer with some far more knowledgeable friends and I was very impressed. Given the modular nature of the vessel, could we not just replace our Halifax frigates with that class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Absalon_%28L16%29


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (5 Aug 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, it is now official, after almost 35 years as a naval officer, I have now been released from the Supplementary Reserve as my 10 years have run out.


 BZ on completing a substantial period of service.  Fair winds and following seas!



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Type :	Class :	Quantity :	Crew Size :	Total Crew :
> SSK	Type 212	6	27	162
> DDG	Daring	12	180	2160
> Command	Absalon	2	169	338
> ...


An interesting list.  Using a ceiling of 4407 personnel and aiming for a general purpose fleet, I would make the following amendments:

-	Swap the Type 212 (albeit a fine design, just a bit small for the Pacific and lacking robust AIO crewing) for six Soryu class @ 65 crew.  
-	The Type 45 has been plagued by problems and is still just a gun platform with a good radar.  I would swap it for ten DDG 51 Flight IIA ships @ 281 crew.  

These two substitutions will drive the numbers up by 872.  To balance the equation:

-	I would eliminate the Absalon class and CVL 
-	Reduce the AOR fleet to two 
-	Add one AOP for a savings of 15 overall.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Aug 2010)

Don't cheat on your numbers Ex-D. Svalbard: 4 x 284 is 1156, not 992.

This said, I think that 284 is the maximum number of embarked people on the Svalbard, including the troop transport berths. The crew is closer to 65-70 range as a rule if I remember well. This is definitely one of those situations where Wiki fails us.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Aug 2010)

Thank you for your good wishes Lex.

Good choice of submarine, but do you think the Japanese - who to my mind currently have the best long range patrol subs - are willing to enter the market, or even can under their constitution? That is the only thing that made me ignore them.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Aug 2010)

What we really need is two or three of these:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Aug 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't cheat on your numbers Ex-D. Svalbard: 4 x 284 is 1156, not 992.
> 
> This said, I think that 284 is the maximum number of embarked people on the Svalbard, including the troop transport berths. The crew is closer to 65-70 range as a rule if I remember well. This is definitely one of those situations where Wiki fails us.



Actually we both screwed it up as its 1136


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Aug 2010)

Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I simply do not know enough to come up with a ideal fleet for the Canadian Navy.
> 
> I was, however, fortunate enough to have a look around the HDMS Absalon this summer with some far more knowledgeable friends and I was very impressed. Given the modular nature of the vessel, could we not just replace our Halifax frigates with that class?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Absalon_%28L16%29



Their main role is that of command and support with a secondary frigate role.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Aug 2010)

In the spirit of how this was intended rather then slam a posters choices come up with your own "Dream Navy"

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Aug 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> FFL              Thetis         2                   60                    120



I'm curious as to what role you had in mind for these?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Aug 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to what role you had in mind for these?



Backstop for the Svalbard OPVs.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (5 Aug 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Good choice of submarine, but do you think the Japanese - who to my mind currently have the best long range patrol subs - are willing to enter the market, or even can under their constitution? That is the only thing that made me ignore them.


I'm not sure - I don't know enough about their politics to know one way or the other.  Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is the clause in their constitution that prohibits an _act of war _ by the state.  Through this article, Japan formally renounces war as a sovereign right and bans settlement of international disputes through the use of force.  Article 9 also states that armed forces with war potential will not be maintained.  However, their creative use of words such as helicopter destroyers (DDH) to comply with constitutional limitations makes me think that they might sell them, especially to an allied navy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Aug 2010)

I seem to remember being told that the Japanese don't export weapons due to their Constitution. And since they seem to be the only ones using their kit then it stands to reason something along those lines.


----------



## Klinkaroo (5 Aug 2010)

My Choices


*Type**Class**Quantity**Complement**Total*AORWave398294Artic PatrolSvalbard3248744SubmarineTodara Class727189Littoral PatrolFreedom Class950450Command/DestroyerDe Zeven Provincien Frigate3202606FrigateF-125 Class Frigate101901900Coastal PatrolArmidale Class7 (12 crews)21252

Few arguments to my points.

AOR : Royal Navy runs them 72 Auxiliary personnel and 26 Naval personnel (for the weapons systems), I assumed here that they would be fully manned by Navy Personel

AOPS : 3 to Patrol the North based out of Iqaluit

Submarine : Yes they may be a little small for the Pacific, but Diesel Electric does not have the capacity to go under the ice for a decent amount of time. The type 212 also known as the Todara class to the Italians, can sustain 3 weeks of operations before requiring to surface. Also carries mines, torpedoes and what is known as an IDAS that can be fired out of the torpedo tubes and take out anti-submarine helicopters.

De Zeven Provincien Frigate : Can remain at the center of a battle group, performs primarily anti-aircraft roles, can cover a large area of either ocean in a self defense type role in consort with other assets. Also acts as a command platform.

Littoral Combat Ship : Small crew, capable of very fast speeds (+45 knots), could run up and down the coast quickly, carries two helicopters, modular capability includes 3 modules that can be switched out in 24 hours. Mine Warfare package that brings on extra sonar gear for Minehunting. Anti-submarine and an Anti-surface package.

F-125 class Frigate : Currently still under development for the Germans, would be the primary long range deployable asset. Has the capability of being away from homeport for up to 2 years without major maintenance. Carries two helicopters and many multi-role sensors.

Armidale Class : Small vessel, 4 on the east coast, 3 on the west coast. Assist with training, fisheries patrols, inland patrols, summer northern patrols. Ships multi-crewed, 7 crews on the east coast, 5 on the west coast.

Interested in seeing your opinions


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (5 Aug 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I seem to remember being told that the Japanese don't export weapons due to their Constitution. And since they seem to be the only ones using their kit then it stands to reason something along those lines.


It would appear that it currently the case although it may change soon.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (6 Aug 2010)

Klinkaroo said:
			
		

> Submarine : Yes they may be a little small for the Pacific, but Diesel Electric does not have the capacity to go under the ice for a decent amount of time. The type 212 also known as the Todara class to the Italians, can sustain 3 weeks of operations before requiring to surface. Also carries mines, torpedoes and what is known as an IDAS that can be fired out of the torpedo tubes and take out anti-submarine helicopters.


The Soryu class is also  an AIP boat.


----------



## Klinkaroo (6 Aug 2010)

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The Soryu class is also  an AIP boat.



You are right, my apologies for completely missing this.

I will still stand by my submarine selection as it does have the IDAS (however I am sure we could also get a system working on the Soryu though), mine laying capability, and with more vessels for the same amount of crew we can spread out, cover larger area (the arctic is big). A is said before in this post, however there is talk that this might be in the process of change, the Japanese do not export their military equipment and something in my gut just says that the German's are good at subs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> When we, here, discuss things like equipment needs or force structure it ought to be based upon some sort of _strategic assessment_ which says: here are the two or three big problems that we will face over the next quarter or half century and here is what we need to respond to them. Policy proposals cannot come “out of the blue.”
> 
> ...



Based on that, I want naval* forces for:

1.	The Defence of Canada – which includes _sovereignty_ assertion and defence, anti-smuggling operations and search and rescue;

2.	Contributing to international peace and security – which, early in the 21st century includes anti-piracy operations wherever required; and

3.	Promotion and protection of Canada’s vital interests – which includes _projecting_ Canadian power and deploying and sustaining Canadian military forces overseas.

I want, within the RCMP, Coast Guard, CBSA *and in the CF*, a ‘fleet’ of coastal patrol vessels – fast enough to catch most (many?) smugglers and illegal fishing vessels, ‘seaworthy’ enough to patrol within our 200 nautical mile limits 365 days and nights per year and so on.

I want a ‘blue water’ fleet able to deploy two multi-ship formations (say, just for the sake of argument, one destroyer or command ship, two frigates and one support ship) at one time, each for an extended period – say 180 days.

I want an *additional* ‘expeditionary’ fleet consisting of:

•	Amphibious shipping consisting of assault shipping (LPHs? LPDs?) able to lift two land/air battle groups – each of 1,500± soldiers with vehicles and helicopters; 
•	_Protective_ destroyers and/or frigates; and
•	Command and support ships.

I guess my “Dream Navy” looks something like this:

•	Coastal patrol _corvettes_ – qty (?)  
•	Mine counter measure vessels – qty (?)
•	Submarines – qty (?)
•	Command ships – qty 4
•	Destroyers – qty 6
•	Frigates – qty 12
•	Amphibious ships – qty (?)
•	Support ships/AORs – qty 4

Some of the coastal patrol and mine counter measure vessels can be _double hatted_ as training vessels.

Can we have a combination destroyer/command ship? Maybe we would, then, need only 8 rather than 10?

 My 22 command ships, destroyers and frigates allow for several to be in repair and refit at any time.

My  :2c: . Could someone with some useful knowledge in this area please _translate_ my “wish list” into classes of ships, numbers of ships and numbers of people, etc?


----------
* Some of these *armed maritime* forces may, indeed should come from other government departments and agencies like the RCMP and, perhaps, Canadian Border Security Agency.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (6 Aug 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> "Leadmark" mentioned (I don't know how many times) the need for general purpose naval forces.


Below is the relevant part from Leadmark: The Navy's Strategy for 2020

The Naval Strategy for 2020: The Canadian navy will continue its development as a highly adaptable and flexible force, ready to provide the government with a wide range of relevant policy options across a continuum of domestic and international contingencies up to mid-level military operations.

The navy will generate combat capable forces that are responsive, rapidly deployable, sustainable, versatile, lethal and survivable.  Canada’s naval forces, from individual units to complete Task Groups, will be tactically self-sufficient and be able to join or integrate into a joint, US or multinational force, anywhere in the world.  The navy will enhance the capability to deploy Vanguard elements for crisis response and to support the rapid deployment of the Land and Air Main Contingency Forces.


----------



## Old Naval Guard (6 Aug 2010)

Well since this is a Dream  :nod:Lets have at her!  ;D I would like to see a Navy like the one we has in the 1950s-1960s in the sense, that we had an Aircraft Carrier  caple of  Air Defence,strike, ASW, 1 Amphious Carrier to transport troops to various situations as they arise. A cruiser (2) type ship for Command and Air Defence, sort of what the Tribals do now. This would revive an Old RCN dream of a Balanced Fleet. 22 Destroyers, Frigates and a modern version of  the corvette. Supply ships 2. Submaries 8-12. Ice breakers 4 while there would be 6-12 Minesweepers or Patrol boats. Also a naval Air arm and a new Canadain navy  Cheers Old Naval Guard


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Aug 2010)

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> Well since this is a Dream  :nod:Lets have at her!  ;D I would like to see a Navy like the one we has in the 1950s-1960s in the sense, that we had an Aircraft Carrier  caple of  Air Defence,strike, ASW, 1 Amphious Carrier to transport troops to various situations as they arise. A cruiser (2) type ship for Command and Air Defence, sort of what the Tribals do now. This would revive an Old RCN dream of a Balanced Fleet. 22 Destroyers, Frigates and a modern version of  the corvette. Supply ships 2. Submaries 8-12. Ice breakers 4 while there would be 6-12 Minesweepers or Patrol boats. Also a naval Air arm and a new Canadain navy  Cheers Old Naval Guard



There was a caveat in the first post of 4402+/- 100 personnel in OGBs opening post and the use of modern warships.

Edward I don't think anyone would feel right telling you what warships to use, after all this is OGBs vision using 4400 personnel.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Aug 2010)

Hey guys speaking of the "ideal navy" and crew sizes. I have heard rumblings that our future surface combatants will have a much scaled down Log Dept. Possibly no Storesys, less cooks, no clerks and less stewards. Can anyone confirm if they have heard the same rumblings ? 

If this did come to fruition would you expect that a set up like MOG5 for the subs and MCDVs would be put into place for the heavy surface combatants ?


----------



## Klinkaroo (10 Aug 2010)

Didn't hear any rumbling at all but I would support a move like this.

I mean no offense to the people that work on the ship, but in the modern age of computers and semi-reliable telephone communications, is there really a requirement to bring the support staff to sea? What is done on ship that couldn't be done from shore. If the engineers need a part for example, they can just phone up the storsey on shore and get the part shipped out. Yes this would all require more training for the people on the ship on keeping an inventory and tracking their stuff, and procedures to place orders, a whole SOP would have to be developed, but in my opinion the ships carry way too many people for the job they do. Many other navies carry far less people for the same size and type of vessel. Also, surely centralizing alot of the logistics would help reduce manning requirements, saving money... And as we all know people are the most expensive part of any navy. Less clerks, less storeseys ect on board means less salary expenditures, less public rations, less sea pay to pay out.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Aug 2010)

Klinkaroo said:
			
		

> What is done on ship that couldn't be done from shore. If the engineers need a part for example, they can just phone up the storsey on shore and get the part shipped out.



One of the strengths of a navy is its ability to operate a great distance from home.  If you're alongside in Halifax then it might be workable to ring up FMF Cape Scott when your widget breaks and get them to bring you a new one, but it's a whole other matter when you're on the other side of the world -- more so if your broken widget is a critical piece of some important system.

A warship is largely self-contained and independent of its surroundings.  Taking too big a bite out of the supply department would take away some of that self-sufficiency and make it a less effective platform.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Aug 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't cheat on your numbers Ex-D. Svalbard: 4 x 284 is 1156, not 992.
> 
> This said, I think that 284 is the maximum number of embarked people on the Svalbard, including the troop transport berths. The crew is closer to 65-70 range as a rule if I remember well. This is definitely one of those situations where Wiki fails us.



With respect to all concerned but I believe the actual embarked strength in the Svalbard is closer to Ex-Dragoon's original number.

This is based on a Norwegian language posting by mjohnstone39 that was posted on January 23, 2006 and subsequently translated by myself.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325301.html#msg325301
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325493.html#msg325493

This seems to suggest a crew of 20 officers, 28 other ranks and a helidet of 4.  It also has carrying capacity for 75 supernumeraries.

Although the original article has disappeared a more current Norwegian article, http://www.mil.no/sjo/kv/start/fartoyene/article.jhtml?articleID=156016 ,
describes a crewing arrangement of 20 officers per “work shift” and a OR establishment of 45 divided into 3 shifts of 15 with only two shifts being aboard at a time.  That equates to a working crew of 50.


----------



## karl28 (11 Aug 2010)

I really do not know a heck of allot about Navy stuff but thought I might give this a try I noticed most people had forgotten about Aux class ships like the Orca so I included them in my list and crew numbers although I couldn't find the crew numbers for the two fire class fire boats the only source I have for crew numbers is Wiki so here is hoping that there accurate .

Type :      Class :      Quantity :      Crew Size :      Total Crew :
CVH         Cavour             1                   794                  794
LPD         Sanatonio         2                   361                 722
AOR         Supply              2                   160                 320
DDG         Arleigh Burke    8                   273                2,184 
SSK          Type 212          4                     27                 108

AUX        
                Orca                 8                      24                  192
                Glenn              10                     6                     60
                Fire                  2                      ?                     ?
                                                                Total Crew : 4,380



Just a note I didn't include any troop number carried  by those vessels as I thought those numbers would come through the army number .


----------



## dapaterson (11 Aug 2010)

One risk with only two of a class is that the moment you begin a refit program you're down to a single hull for three oceans - limiting flexibility tremendously.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Aug 2010)

karl28 said:
			
		

> I really do not know a heck of allot about Navy stuff but thought I might give this a try I noticed most people had forgotten about Aux class ships like the Orca so I included them in my list and crew numbers although I couldn't find the crew numbers for the two fire class fire boats the only source I have for crew numbers is Wiki so here is hoping that there accurate .



It doesn't affect your bottom line much, but just for your own information the fire boats and tugs (including the Glens) are operated by civilian DND employees, not CF members.  The ORCAs are principally used for training, so most of the 24 people shown as crew would actually be students.


----------



## karl28 (11 Aug 2010)

dapaterson and N Mckay thanks for the input I know some classes I was stretching thing being only one or two vessels but was trying to get as much as I could with the numbers aloud thanks again for the feed back .


----------



## Klinkaroo (12 Aug 2010)

To add on to that, the Orca only requires 4 people to sail. The rest are students with their Course Training Officer.

And like N. McKay said, the tugs, barges, fireboats, tenders, ect are run by the Canadian Forces Fleet Auxiliary. Not 100% sure on this, but if I remember correctly the Dive Tenders as well are crewed with regards to engineering and deck officers by the CF Fleet Auxiliary. As are the Torpedo Tenders in Nanoose.


----------



## canuck101 (12 Aug 2010)

Well here is my selection for a dream Navy:


•	3 Berlin Class AOR 
•	3 Svalbard Offshore Patrol Vessel 
•	8 Type 212 Submarines 
•	3  De Zeven Provincien Frigates
•	9 F-125 Frigates
•	8 Armidale Class Patrol Boats
•	3 Endurance Class LPD


----------



## Monsoon (12 Aug 2010)

Klinkaroo said:
			
		

> To add on to that, the Orca only requires 4 people to sail. The rest are students with their Course Training Officer.


Four people can ferry it across the harbour; if you want to use it for any kind of operational role, you need about 15, minimum.


----------



## karl28 (14 Aug 2010)

I really do not know a heck of allot about Navy stuff but thought I might give this a try I noticed most people had forgotten about Aux class ships like the Orca so I included them in my list and crew numbers although I couldn't find the crew numbers for the two fire class fire boats the only source I have for crew numbers is Wiki so here is hoping that there accurate .

Type :      Class :      Quantity :      Crew Size :      Total Crew :
LPD         Mistral            3                  310                  930
AOR         Berlin             4                  139                  556
DDG       Arliegh burke   9                273                   2457
SSK         U212              6                27                    162

AUX        
                Orca                 8                      24                  192
                Glenn              10                     6                     60
                Fire                  2                      ?                     ?
                                                                Total Crew : 4357

After some feedback that I got here is my revised list .  I think this list is allot better than my original list .


----------



## STONEY (15 Aug 2010)

When posters on this subject state that they don't have much knowledge of Naval Matters that was an understatement to say the least.  To keep 4400 sailors deployed on ships would take 15,000 if not more in the Navy.  Everyone failes to take into account or just ignore things such a training , leave, medical , logistics and many other reasons too numerous to mention.  Just as the Army requires many soldiers in the chain for every one deployed  so the Navy with its many technical trades requires if anything even more in the chain for everyone deployed.  Just something to keep in mind when crunching numbers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Aug 2010)

STONEY said:
			
		

> When posters on this subject state that they don't have much knowledge of Naval Matters that was an understatement to say the least.  To keep 4400 sailors deployed on ships would take 15,000 if not more in the Navy.  Everyone failes to take into account or just ignore things such a training , leave, medical , logistics and many other reasons too numerous to mention.  Just as the Army requires many soldiers in the chain for every one deployed  so the Navy with its many technical trades requires if anything even more in the chain for everyone deployed.  Just something to keep in mind when crunching numbers.



Again OGBs intent was to have a little fun and see what others came up with. I think as a LCDR just recently retired he has an idea about manning issues and administration requirements.


----------



## Lineman (16 Aug 2010)

In the spirit of having fun and dreaming of a future navy:
Class    name         crew      QTY     total crew
LHD      Albion        325         2           650
LSD      Bay            60           2           120
AOR     Wave         102         4           408
AAW    Horizon      230         4           920
FFG     FREMM        108         12        1296
OPV    Protector    80           4            320
SSK    Gotland       33           8           264
AOP    Svalbard     60           4           240
AFFG   Thetis         60           2           120
MCM   Styrso SAM3.0 16      6           96
TrV     Orca            24          8           192
                                                       4496


----------



## canuck101 (17 Aug 2010)

I revised My Dream Navy 
•   2 Berlin Class AOR 
•   4 Svalbard Offshore Patrol Vessel 
•   6 Type 212 Submarines 
•   4 De Zeven Provincien Frigates
•   8 Sigma class corvette
•   3 Endurance Class LPD


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Aug 2010)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> I revised My Dream Navy
> •   2 Berlin Class AOR
> •   4 Svalbard Offshore Patrol Vessel
> •   6 Type 212 Submarines
> ...



So what are your crew requirements?


----------



## canuck101 (17 Aug 2010)

1.  278 crew for two Berlin Aor
2.  992 for four Svalbard OPV
3.  162 for six Type 212 Submarines
4.  808 for four De Zeven Provincien Frigates
5.  640 for eight sigma class corvettes
6.  195 for three Endurance Class LPD

The total is: 3075


----------



## Infanteer (17 Aug 2010)

But would your dream navy's float for long?

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-58/JFQ58_54-56_Shrader.pdf

Not too up to speed on sensor technology and sattelites, so I am unsure of how valid the authors argument is that the sea is "shrinking" by the day.

Anyone up for a fleet of submarines?


----------

