# For those who want to read about the Conservative's Military Plan....



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Jun 2004)

See Link to their new policy document:   *http://www.conservative.ca/platform/e.pdf*

Check pages 38-39....

The acquisitions list shows you that they've definitely done their homework.


Cheers all,



Matthew.


----------



## nULL (9 Jun 2004)

They said nothing about the return of the CAR.


----------



## rcr (9 Jun 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> They said nothing about the return of the CAR.



I have contacted my Conservative MP regarding that.  I haven't heard anything back yet but I only contacted them last week.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2004)

I must admit I roll my eyes when I read about the hybrid helicopter carriers...I'd like to see the navy get the JSS project in the water before they even think of anything as outlanding as carriers. The frigates need to be upgraded soon and the kinks need to be worked out the Upholders deperately. Not to mention the 280s need replacement very soon. Its a good report but the carriers are pure fantasy.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (9 Jun 2004)

The old Alliance defense policy mentioned bringing back the CAR.  I was against it then, and I am still against it as a short term policy.  There are just too many things that take priority over bringing back the Airborne.  While this may upset a whole bunch of people, if you honestly sit down and prioritise everything that has to be done to fis the Forces, bringing back the CAR would most likely be down a few items on your list of priorities as well.

I actually asked Stephen Harper about the carriers.  Apparently, he was told that after a firm committment, it would take 12-15 years to design, contract out and build before they would be available for duty.  That's an awful long time, and leaves lots of time to come up with funding, and to build the personnel strength of the Navy up enough to man the things.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2004)

*I actually asked Stephen Harper about the carriers.   Apparently, he was told that after a firm commitment, it would take 12-15 years to design, contract out and build before they would be available for duty.   That's an awful long time, and leaves lots of time to come up with funding, and to build the personnel strength of the Navy up enough to man the things*

Unfortunately its not that easy...doctrine has to be developed around the carriers, procedures have to established using carriers. A whole new training program for enlisted and officers would have to be established for existing and future members of the navy and air force. Trainers would have to be developed, tested, bought and implemented before we could safely sail one. Additional support and escort ships would have to be purchased to support the carrier. You will have to figure that one JSS would be permanently attached to the carrier and her escort group. Need I go on? Its a very bad idea especially when we need so much more.

Oh I also forgot...some might suggest exchanges with other navies and while that will workfor small numbers thats just it only small numbers could gain experience.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (9 Jun 2004)

Well, even with our crowd in NDHQ, we just might be able to come up with a plan that is implementable before 15 years are up!

It's not as if we have never had, or operated with carriers.  Doctrine and procedures are well established, and the Canadian Navy has operated with such groups before, both British and American.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2004)

Lance trust me I have been doing this for 10 years and when we adopt something new in the navy or reinvent the wheel we change things. When the 280s got the SM-2 missiles given us an area defence capability we learned what we could from the others that have medium and long range SAM and developed our own methods. Roughly after 10 yrs we are becoming some what proficient at it. Mine warfare which was all but dead in the CF for decades is something we are relearning as well when we built the MCDVs. Comparing helo carriers to true carriers is like comparing apples to oranges. Different procedures, tactics, operations are needed. The army is going through the same thing with the MGS, you are trying to make it work. If we get the carriers we will get them to work but its something we really don't want nor need.


----------



## Slim (9 Jun 2004)

Hey all

I must say that, even though I agree with Ex-Dragoon ( we have previously discussed this very subject via PM) I am still going to "take the chance" and vote for the PC's when the big day comes around. I would love for the government to *DO SOMETHING * for the CF.

By the way, bring the CAR back may be low on the priority list in terms pf practicality but it would be an incredible morale boost for the CF and, possibly, the country at large.

My 2 cents

Slim


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Jun 2004)

I'm actually a fan of the carrier idea.

What I hated was the money being flushed on CADRE.   My foresight tells me that a majority of operations we will be entering into over the next 20 years we willl not face any real threat of attack by airpower.   In those cases where there actually is an enemy and they have an air force, it is unrealistic to believe we would be deploying without proper air cover as provided by an ally (most likely the USA, but possibly Britain).

Ergo, if the need based on future roles is moot, the equipment should be eliminated (even if it is a Navy pet project).

That brings me to the where I think the world will need us in upcoming years and I see the model of Afghanistan, Somalia and Rwanda being the template for future threats.   

That requires:
1)   Boots on the ground with the best vehicles, weapons and body armour possible
2)   The ability to unilaterally deploy them, support them and protect them from projected threats

In short, for foreign operations the other forces should be modified to support the Army.

Equipment Purchases Required:

Navy
1)   Fast Transport Ships with amphibious and Ro-Ro capabilities (see LPD-17)
2)   Helicopter carriers with amphibious landing capabilities (modelled directly on the US Marines)
3)   VTOL Surveillance UAV for Surveillance and Targetting
4)   Transport Helicopters to get men & supplies where they need to go
5)   Refit Halifax-class with top-notch defensive suite as well as maximum shore-battery capability.

Air Force
1)   Finish the damned CF-18 upgrade project!!!
2)   Accept the fact that the Hercules cannot move our Land Forces and transition to a mix of C-17's (preferably stretched) and C-27J Spartans (Tactical Supply)
3)   Acquire Global Hawk for Strategic Intelligence Gathering of the Theatre
4)   Acquire Predator B for round-the-clock Tactical Surveillance (protection) of all deployed ground forces

Bottom Line:   Although perceived as infeasible by some, if we are to play a significant role on the ground around the world, the logistics support of Helicopter Carriers in my opinion is absolutely essential.

Thoughts welcome....

Cheers,


Matthew.


----------



## devil39 (9 Jun 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Lance trust me I have been doing this for 10 years and when we adopt something new in the navy or reinvent the wheel we change things. When the 280s got the SM-2 missiles given us an area defence capability we learned what we could from the others that have medium and long range SAM and developed our own methods. Roughly after 10 yrs we are becoming some what proficient at it. Mine warfare which was all but dead in the CF for decades is something we are relearning as well when we built the MCDVs. Comparing helo carriers to true carriers is like comparing apples to oranges. Different procedures, tactics, operations are needed. The army is going through the same thing with the MGS, you are trying to make it work. If we get the carriers we will get them to work but its something we really don't want nor need.



Would we want some Strategic Sea Lift capabilty, perhaps a BG   or two worth?   A capability to launch a few helos (or maybe a dozen)   from it?   

As an Army guy I certainly would.   Deployments would be far more predictable and secure.   NEO would be far simpler.   

Doctrine in the Army at times tends to get formalized long after we have been practicing and employing TTPs.   New equipment should not be a threat, but a welcome challenge.   I will gladly employ your Strat Sea Lift and write your doctrine if you do not wish to.   : )


----------



## Slim (10 Jun 2004)

The government needs to go, hat in hand, to the yanks and buy some of their M1 Abrams! I am quite sure we would get a good deal... and to my way of thinking the face of war has not changed enough to justify getting rid of a heavy offensive weapon like the MBT! As for the rest...Its too bad the government doesn't listen to (or read) this thread...Some good ideas here!

Slim


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2004)

Ex-Dragoon

Not picking a fight here.  But.  Does the navy still train for convoy escort duties? Because if so wouldn't it be prepared to transport a troopship from Canada's shores to a foreign shore?

I get the impression that the vessels labelled by the Liberals as "aircraft carriers" are intended by the Conservatives as troop carriers with a flat deck from which helicopters can fly.  They would not be part of a task force's fighting strength, not really a navy ship at all really.  Did taking the Protector to Somalia and parking her there require a doctrinal change?

I am just a bit confused here.

The "carriers" that are being talked about here are depicted as through deck flat-tops but I think that something like the LPD-17s would do the job just as well. As for crewing I don't know anything about naval vessel crewing requirements but Royal Fleet Auxilliary vessels and civil vessels of larger size only seem to need 30-50? people for shiphandling duties.

So if we assume that the primary role of the types of vessels we are talking about here is troop/equipment transport is it necessary to carry a full complement of naval warfare specialists all the time?  What size of crew did the GTS Katie carry?

Perhaps there is a role for naval reservists in manning these vessels which I think could in all likelihood spend a good portion of their life at dock-side. (Bad news - underutilized capital (like a fire-engine?)   Good news - very long service life with care)

I note also that the Americans are reconfiguring their requirements and intend to cancel 4 LPD-17s that have already got slip space booked.  They are intending to replace them with 4 expanded Wasp Carriers that can carry an air wing of up to 30? JSFs plus helicopters.

Would there be merit in buying a couple/all of the Bare-Bones hulls and fitting 3 out for the JSS role and one for the Transport/Shore Service Support/Shore Command role?

Again, just to clarify, as I understand it these wouldn't be fighting vessels they would be a combination of the GTS Katie and the Provider as employed of Somalia,but with a flat top.

The navy might be expected to supply ships-handling crew, escort to the theatre of operations, a guard vessel in theatre and maybe some small-boats personnel to handle ship-to-shore operations as well as close-in security personnel.

Does such a vessel really require a large crew and a doctrinal change?

Just asking


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (10 Jun 2004)

Hey Kirkhill,

Where did you hear about the LPD-17 cancellations?

If that is true, that could be a heck of gift landing in our laps.   

Any link you've got would be great....

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Jun 2004)

It is interesting to note the document doesn't actually say helicopter carriers.   It says hybrid carriers for helicopters and strategic lift.   This could be something along the lines of the Dutch Rotterdam ships.   These can carry a battalion of infantry, six helos (with landing spots for two), docks for landing craft, and the capacity for 170 APCs or 33 MBTs, and a hospital.   This seems to be somewhat in line with new   Joint Support Ships the navy is looking at, with the exception of the refuelling capability/cargo.
So, call me cynical but I see a political party that seems to be supporting new capablities but when elected they can just let an existing program continue and still fulfill a campaign promise.


----------



## Spr.Earl (10 Jun 2004)

Just going off on another tangent for a mo.
I have often wondered why have we not done like the Yank's and Brit's.(its cheap)
The Brits have the R.F.A. which is the Royal Fleet Auxiliary which is a fleet of ship's manned by Merchant Seaman and the Yank's have the ?Ready Command? which is also manned by Merchant Seaman and the both sail refueler's,supply ship's which do at time's go on Fleet Ex's.

If the Government put it's mind to it we could have a ship in the water with in 3yrs and the next one 2yrs later.
I don't know how many White Paper's have been put out since I've been in but I'm sick and tired of hearing about them.


----------



## Spr.Earl (10 Jun 2004)

"I have always believed that success would be the inevitable result if the two services, the army and the navy, had fair play, and if we sent the right man to fill the right place." 

Sir Henry Austen Layard, Speech in British Parliament, Jan. 15, 1855.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
*What I hated was the money being flushed on CADRE.  My foresight tells me that a 
majority of operations we will be entering into over the next 20 years we Will not face any real threat of attack by airpower.  In those cases where there actually is an enemy and they have an air force, it is unrealistic to believe we would be deploying without proper air cover as provided by an ally (most likely the USA, but possibly Britain).*
CADRE has been revamped so many times thats why is got so expensive. It started as a simple destroyer with Sm2s with C4I capability so a destroyer that could do it all. Its no wonder it was never implemented. Changes have been made so hopefully the new version will see itself to be built. Can you guarantee that beyond a fraction of a doubt we won't need a ship with long range air defence capability and we can always rely on our allies to provide air defence? Almost sounds like the army and the MGS debate doesn't it? liken it to those terms and you will see why 

*5)  Refit Halifax-class with top-notch defensive suite as well as maximum shore-battery capability.*
What did you have in mind....all the advantages that the CPFs enjoy would be pretty much lost or diminished if we get the hull plug. Agreed the Halifax class needs to be upgraded an updated but its an escort vessel. If you want shore support then you will have to wait for whatever replaces the 280s.

Kirkhill said:
*Not picking a fight here.  But.  Does the navy still train for convoy escort duties? Because if so wouldn't it be prepared to transport a troopship from Canada's shores to a foreign shore?*
No worries I know you are not. The last big convoy exercise I believe was in the mid 80s. It costs money for ship owners to pull their ships off their jobs just so the navy can practice. it happens on a very limited scale. We did escort ships through the Straits of Hormuz and other enclosed areas and do extensive wargaming but thats pretty much it. After World War1 the navies lost the skill set for convoy escort and did not regain it until well into World War 2. Protection of AORs, carriers, amphibs is something we have been doing a lot lately.

*I get the impression that the vessels labelled by the Liberals as "aircraft carriers" are intended by the Conservatives as troop carriers with a flat deck from which helicopters can fly.  They would not be part of a task force's fighting strength, not really a navy ship at all really.  Did taking the Protector to Somalia and parking her there require a doctrinal change?*
God only knows what the Conservatives intend for the military. How would they not be a navy ship at all? Last I checked anything that flys the Ensign is a Canadian Navy ship. Just because its not a frigate, destroyer, carrier etc does the distinction stop there? I don't think so! You say that to a USN sailor off the USS Boxer and tell him he is not really on a navy ship and I bet you would get a fat lip for your troubles.

*So if we assume that the primary role of the types of vessels we are talking about here is troop/equipment transport is it necessary to carry a full complement of naval warfare specialists all the time?  What size of crew did the GTS Katie carry?*
Ever see an ops room on an amphib? If you have you will know that they have their "full complement of naval warfare specialist" Otherwise who is going to detect and classify your threats? Who will man your defensive systems and your weapon systems? Who will assist in navigation? IIRC GTS Katie carried 9 or 11. I will double check that for you.

*Perhaps there is a role for naval reservists in manning these vessels which I think could in all likelihood spend a good portion of their life at dock-side.*
Considering they have a hard enough time manning the MCDVs how are you going to get them to man this?

*Would there be merit in buying a couple/all of the Bare-Bones hulls and fitting 3 out for the JSS role and one for the Transport/Shore Service Support/Shore Command role?*
Always an option I suppose but I think both the army and navy feels the JSS is optimal for both needs. Its not a perfect set up but its the best compromise.

AmmoTech90 said:
*It is interesting to note the document doesn't actually say helicopter carriers.  It says hybrid carriers for helicopters and strategic lift.  This could be something along the lines of the Dutch Rotterdam ships.....This seems to be somewhat in line with new  Joint Support Ships the navy is looking at, with the exception of the refuelling capability/cargo.*
Nice ships but we want to be able to refuel and resupply. Why would we get something that cannot do that role?

Spr Earl said:
*I have often wondered why have we not done like the Yank's and Brit's.(its cheap)
The Brits have the R.F.A. which is the Royal Fleet Auxiliary which is a fleet of ship's manned by Merchant Seaman and the Yank's have the ?Ready Command? which is also manned by Merchant Seaman and the both sail refueler's,supply ship's which do at time's go on Fleet Ex's.*
i think the answer to that is the fees the CF would have to pay out to the unions. You would know about that more.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2004)

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw040504_1_n.shtml

Here's the link you were asking about Blackshirt.  This is the shortened version.  I read the complete article at the library.  Could be interesting right enough.

Ex-Dragoon

Fair enough on the Ops Centre but could not Naval Ops be conducted from the Ops room of the CADRE destroyers (you see I still agree we need them) while the Shore Ops are conducted from the Troop Carrier.  As I understand it that is the intention with the JSS requirement to embark a Battle Group/National Command Element.

Admittedly the Americans do integrate many activities on board one vessel for coordination but they also have a high degree of redundancy with many ops rooms in the group.  This is undoubtedly necessary when staging an amphibious assault on a contested shore.

But suppose we assume that we are not going to be doing that.  That the reason we are going to deploy a battlegroup is to control militias with rifles and rpgs and support a local police force.  The rationale for putting the command and logistic support at sea is to put those elements OUT of harms way - then we don't have to be worried about frustrated soldiers with inadequate amounts of barbed wire trying to keep axles and meals from guys in flip-flops.  

In other words the platform (the sea base to use the upcoming jargon) would be deployed in a low threat environment.

If the government wanted to employ the capability in a high-threat environment then it could join the Dutch and the Spanish and possibly the Australians, as well as second echelon Brit and American forces.  

Fair enough about the reserves.  Could the reserves handle a mission like training at their home bases to handle containerized weapons systems that could be stuck onto unarmed vessels?


As to the comments about the navy ships, I apologize if I offended your profession dignity excessively. ;D Seeing as how I was suggesting a vessel with no guns or missiles on it I didn't think you guys in blue would be interested in crewing her.  But if you want to put guns and missiles on her and run up the White Ensign I am sure many of the types in Green would be immensely grateful.  >


Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw040504_1_n.shtml
> 
> Ex-Dragoon
> 
> ...



Now why would you only rely on one Ops Room do do all that work? You can task a specific ship to do a job with others acting as secondary or teritary platforms. If you shut down an Ops Room one one ship   or more and some sort of damage occurs what then? It is like arming only 1 or 2 guys in your section (or only your best shots). Redundancy in the navy is good, it keeps people alive longer.

I don't see why the Naval Reserves could not do that I thought you were referring to them solely manning the ships.

As long as a ship has the prefix HMCS, USS its part of the that countries navy its a commissioned warship.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Jun 2004)

Ex-Dragoon,

What I meant by "exception of refuelling/cargo" is that the Rotterdam design is nothing like a Tarawa and does not invoke the idea of a "carrier" but does meet the requirements of the JSS with that exception.  I believe the JSS is planned to be around 29000 tons and the Rotterdam is around 13000.  I'm no naval architect but could this extra 16000 tons add the refuelling/cargo capability?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2004)

Could be anything AT90..until we know for sure what the JSS is suppose to do all we can do it imagine. It does stand to reason though that some of that 16000 tons could be for various stores and fuel. I am no naval architech either just been sailing since '94 and have picked up on a bit.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2004)

Why would I rely on only one Ops Room?

To keep the costs down.

If I can't afford to put an Ops Room in every hull then I would rather have the hull available to perform its primary task without an Ops Room than not have the ability to perform the task at all.

As to Redundancy, in high threat environment send 2 CADREs.  Just like when the job is too big for a section you don't send a bigger section you send a platoon.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2004)

Kirkhill what you are asking then is for a ship to sail blind with no way to defend itself or see what threats are out there. No CO would ever sail under those conditions and no navy would either.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2004)

I think that is the point I was trying to get at when I was asking about convoy escort duties and the GTS Katie.

The Katie had no Ops Room and the tankers you were escorting through the Straits of Hormuz suffered the same situation.  They were sailing blind, with zero situational awareness and reliant totally on you in the CPFs and DDHs to get them where they needed to be.

I don't see the significant difference between escorting a tanker into Bandar Abbas and escorting a troop carrier to a moorage 5 km off Mogadishu. Or perhaps better locations today would be Kinshasa (up the Congo) or Port Sudan.

I am not seeing this as a fighting vessel.  It is a transport vessel, just as a Ro-Ro carrier, Oil tanker, Passenger Liner or Container Vessel taken up from trade would be.

Would it help if I suggested the money shouldn't come from a Navy budget but that a separate Strategic lift budget should be created to fund not only these vessels but also the Strategic Airlift requirement (read C17s)?  Then all oxes could be gored equally.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2004)

The GTS Katie is not even an auxillary why would a civillian ship have an operations room? Why would it have EW gear, air/surface search radars, weapons firing panels and communications gear up the wazoo? You can bet those ships had a guy closed up on their radar and if they had sonar you can bet it was pinging looking for mines!


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2004)

Right.  That's why it would need escorting.  It also needs a cleared moorage - which we theoretically can supply with the MCDVs.

But the point is, it transported a large amount of kit (for an excessively long time ) to where the army needed it.  That is all the army is looking for. At least as this civilian sees it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2004)

So let me get this straight you would prefer if the navy lets the army meet its own sealift needs as well as contracting out of fleet replenishment?


----------



## Jungle (10 Jun 2004)

Here's the latest piece by Lewis MacKenzie in today's National Post


> *Projecting force abroad *
> 
> I've always believed that a nation's obligations abroad are proportional to
> its blessings at home. There are millions of oppressed people around the
> ...


Basically sounds like what we did with the Bonaventure when the first CDN troops deployed to Cyprus in 1964. This is exactly what the CF need, and we should think about the possibility of purchasing Harriers so we have the option of equipping those Carriers with them when needed.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2004)

You think the Conservatives will triple the defence budget? Thats what it would take to get something like this even started plus all the support needed. Just musing here but how seriously would anyone in the army take Admiral Ron Buck if he started coming out with things the army needs to do?


----------



## jutes85 (10 Jun 2004)

> The government needs to go, hat in hand, to the yanks and buy some of their M1 Abrams!



Ahh, Israels Merkava is better.


----------



## devil39 (10 Jun 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You think the Conservatives will triple the defence budget? Thats what it would take to get something like this even started plus all the support needed. Just musing here but how seriously would anyone in the army take Admiral Ron Buck if he started coming out with things the army needs to do?



I think if the Admiral wasn't suffering a severe case of "cranial-rectal insertion" we would listen to what he had to say.   The future should be "Joint" after all.   The Navy and the Army usually understand that.

How is this going to require the defence budget to triple?   

Can you substantiate this claim with the platform (vessel) costs, possibly prepositioned and floating equipment costs, O & M costs, Navy pers manning costs (PYs), another 12- 36 helo costs? 

 Over a multi year program this is triple the proposed conservative budget (less inflation) of 20 Billion five years from now?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2004)

> So let me get this straight you would prefer if the navy lets the army meet its own sealift needs as well as contracting out of fleet replenishment?



No. I must learn to communicate more clearly.

I would like the Forces to buy a hull, a hulk, a motorized barge, a bathtub with an outboard motor....  whatever it takes to get a battlegroup's worth of gear to the theater of operations so that it can be unloaded all at once.

It would be nice if the navy manned it.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2004)

Lets see devil....
Say 3 Wasp class LHA 341 million USD each>>>>1.023 billion USD
or 3 San Antonio class LPD 245 million USD each>>>735 million USD
16 LCACs 24 million USD each>>>>>384 million USD
40 EH101s 29 million USD each>>> 1.160 billion USD
about 3000 personnel hired on to man and repair>>>> say 100 million
Spare parts and ancillary equipment for above>>>>200 million
Modifications to CFB Esquilmalt and Halifax>>>> 500 million
Training costs (simulators etc)>>>>>1 billion
all the studies NDHQ like to do before any project>>>>> 1 billion
New escorts for these ships (4 air defence destroyers)>>>>6-9 billion
at least 2 additional auxillaries>>>>> 4 billion
Prepositioned vehciles and stores for embarked army units>>>>prob around 600 million
Amphib training for army units>>>>100 million

ADDS up pretty quick doesn't it devil? SO maybe I am not at the 37 billion but I am getting close plus what we are spending now.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2004)

Quick question for clarification's sake Ex-Dragoon.

Do you think the Army should be operating overseas?

I understand we can get civilian hulls to carry the army in.  But can we get civilian hulls to carry the army out once the bullets start flying?

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Quick question for clarification's sake Ex-Dragoon.
> 
> Do you think the Army should be operating overseas?
> 
> ...


Well its the job off all 3 services to represent foreign policy overseas in whatever manner the goverment deems appropriate.
Your last question is very good and illustrates why its better to have sealift under military control rather then under civillian contract.


----------



## Slim (10 Jun 2004)

jutes said:
			
		

> > The government needs to go, hat in hand, to the yanks and buy some of their M1 Abrams!
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, Israels Merkava is better.



Yep the Merkava is a good platform and can carry troops.

The Abrams is a good tank, with good armour and the parts are right next door!
So is the BlackHawk/SeaHawk/NightHawk/Stalker!


----------



## devil39 (10 Jun 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Lets see devil....
> Say 3 Wasp class LHA 341 million USD each>>>>1.023 billion USD
> or 3 San Antonio class LPD 245 million USD each>>>735 million USD
> 16 LCACs 24 million USD each>>>>>384 million USD
> ...



Ex-Dragoon,

Certainly does add up.   However I'm not certain you can substantiate your claim of a triple defence budget.   Keeping in mind that the Capital acquisition costs are one time (not an annual cost unlike O&M), and the total is spread over many years, I see no requirement for triple the defence budget.   

20 Billion annually adjusted for inflation, should suffice I would think.   Then again I am an Infantryman and not in the business of strategic level business planning.

Regardless I do get your point.   It will cost money.   

It might also change a certain amount of your operational focus.   Perhaps the Navy may balk at committing a significant portion of their manpower and effort to facilitating Army centric activities.   Gotta love "Joint" Ops.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (10 Jun 2004)

To ex-dragoon,

First in response to your question about upgunning the Halifax to accommodate a 
shore battery capability, in retrospect I don't think it's worthwhile.   The main gun in 
place now is used as part of the self-defence suite, so why mess with it.

RE:   An Acquisition Plan - It looks like I do different math than you....

Acquisition Costs (spread over procurement period)
1 Wasp class LHA 341 million USD each>>>>>>>>>341 million USD
12 JSF VTOL 50 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>>600 million USD
3 San Antonio class LPD-17's 245 million USD each>>>735 million USD
16 LCACs 24 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>384 million USD
40 EH101s 29 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1,160 million USD
3 Small AOR's - 100 million USD each >>>>>>>>>>>300 million USD
3 Medium Ro-Ro's - 125 million USD each>>>>>>>>>375 million USD
12 Halifax Upgrades - 100 million USD each>>>>>>1,200 million USD 
Spare parts and ancillary equipment for above>>>>>200 million USD
Modifications to CFB Esquilmalt and Halifax>>>>>>> 500 million USD
Training Simulators etc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>300 million USD
NDHQ Planning and Administration>>>>>>>>>>>>500 million USD
_________________________________________________________
Total Procurment Costs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>6595 million USD

Amortize over 6 year procurement plan and you're at $1750million CAD/yr.

Additional Annual Operating Costs
4000 personnel hired on to man and repair>>>>>> 200 million per year
Annual Training and Oparational Costs>>>>>>>>>500 million per year
____________________________________________________________
Total Annual Operating Costs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>700 million per year

In short, you could have all that for an average Military Budget Increase 
of less than $2.5 billion per year.

That seems like a hell of a return on investment considering what we're unable 
to do with $11 billion per year now.

Of note, if anyone wants to change up the mix and suggest alternative battle 
groups, go for it.

Cheers all,



Matthew.     

P.S.   Kirkhill - thanks for posting that link....very cool.


----------



## DJL (10 Jun 2004)

I'm new, and because of that, I don't want to step on any toes, but I think both  ex-dragoon and Cdn Blackshirt numbers are slight skewed so I'll add my two "bits" to the topic:



> Say 3 Wasp class LHA 341 million USD each>>>>1.023 billion USD



Just one WASP is in the ball park of over Three Billion (not million) per. So for three WASP LHDs, we would be looking at over twelve Billion dollars......not including cup holders.



> 12 JSF VTOL 50 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>>600 million USD



I'm quite sure that the Kippers are expecting to be paying upwards of 115 million per F-35B. (this total factors in spares, training aids, dev cots etc)



> 3 San Antonio class LPD-17's 245 million USD each>>>735 million USD



The USN is paying over 800 million per ship, which would translate into over a Billion Cdn.



> 16 LCACs 24 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>384 million USD



I'm quite sure that new LCACs are not being produced, so we would have to perhaps look into playing a part with the USMC replacement program, regardless, that going to cost big bucks

As for the rest of the costs, all one can do leads to conjecture.

Regardless, I agree with ex-dragoon that any of the above items are infact, big ticket and with the "big ticket" comes a big bill.....one of which we could not afford with the current budget.

Now I agree with others here that we should look at these _kind_ of capabilities, but lower our sights so to speak. Now the Australians are looking at two "medium weight" LHDs/LPDs to replace their current fleet of three Phibs, and IIRC, they are looking at a French and a Spanish design, both of which are only a fraction of the cost of the larger American designs. Another example, might be HMS Ocean, which in the great scheme things, was cheap. Also, compared to the American design, these ships also have quite the reduction in crew size, which is the most expensive part of any ship.

Now if the current (or near future) navies of Spain and Australia will be able to operate these kinds of ships, i fail to see why we can't. In both cases, (if the 280s are replaced) our navy will have the same (possably larger) number of hulls as those of the Spanish and Australian navies.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jun 2004)

I was using ex-dragoon's pricing.....     ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jun 2004)

Way to run for cover Blackshirt ;D

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

Here's an interesting link for comparing vessels.

Noteworthy is the fact that the Spanish and Dutch are Crewing their 16000 ton LPDs with 124-128 personnel vice 285 for a DDH.  The Brits, sailing the same ship in unarmed configuration are only using 60 civilians (total crew).  It seems that one DDH crew could handle between 2 and 4 of the LPDs.  That would give more than enough lift for a BattleGroup (the Dutch carry a 615 marine battalion along with a squadron of MBTs about 80 other vehicles and half-a-dozen Pumas in one hull).

The Brits built their 4 for 640 million dollars (the set - not per unit).  http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/landing_ship_dock_auxillary.htm

Amount budgeted for 3 JSS 2100 milllion dollars.  Interesting use of funds.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jun 2004)

Again Kirkhill would you want to be on a ship that had no air defence escorts? You give up the 280s to man an LHA/LPD and that is exactly what you are doing. Contrary to popular believe the CPFs are only good to protect themselves  and ships in real real close with their Sea Sparrows. You want to kill the ones shooting at you then you want a 280 or better.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jun 2004)

*Kirkhill: "Way to run for cover Blackshirt!"*

When in doubt, duck-and-cover....

Of note, to Dragoon, re: AAW Destroyers I would contend that for the most part other than being better at knocking down incoming missiles, 
they are for the most part redundant.   This may be an unpopular opinion but a quick comparison of the ranges of Exocet/Harpoon/etc 
versus SM-2 and the math very quickly highlights the fact that the enemy will be able to fire and retreat before your destroyer can even
get a missile lock, much less fire and then chase an opposing aircraft after it turns away from your battlegroup having released its missiles.

In short, my take is that:
1)  We rarely need air protection
2)  If we do need air protection, the only way to go is a new carrier with JSF-C as they can create that all-important strategic depth necessary 
for our forces to be able to engage that incoming enemy aircraft prior to them launching thier antiship missiles.

My Canadian White Paper would therefore retire the (4) 280's outright and transition to a single small carrier which would form the centre
of a new Expeditionary Forces Battlegroup (with (4) networked and upgraded Kingstons providing the close-in air defence against missiles that 
do manage to get launched as well as ASW protection). 

As always, thoughts welcome....

Cheers,



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jun 2004)

Since you guys _obviously_ have more naval experience then I could ever hope to then fill your boots. As its obvious to me I am wasting my time having this discussion.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jun 2004)

I don't know that I can go as far as Blackshirt.  Advances in technology, in the form of longer range loitering missiles with precision attack capability, vertically launched ASROCs, UAVs, drones, long endurance sonars, rail guns and a host of others are extending the area that a platform at sea can dominate.  (They also bring into question the need for the large helicopter in the ASW mode - but that is another debate).

I don't want to scrap the capability of the DDHs.  Actually I would like to see the CADRE type vessel with the Theatre AAD missiles. 

What I was suggesting was that the crews for the transport ships are not very big and that the skill sets required can be handled by civilian seamen in worst case.

My understanding is that manning requirements for all vessels is falling so the likelihood is that the DDH replacement would require fewer bodies than the DDH themselves.  If 60 bodies could be removed from the manning requirement of each DDH couldn't they be reallocated to man 4 transport vessels according to the British model?

In worst case if all 285 bodies of a full DDH crew were reallocated to transport duties wouldn't that still leave enough bodies to man three DDHs?

Over.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jun 2004)

To ex-dragoon,

I'm only presenting a viewpoint.  I thought the point of all message boards was to share viewpoints and learn from each others experiences, education and knowledge.

As such, if you think my idea is daft I'd love to hear to where the logic of my previous argument broke down.

To Kirkhill,

One though I had on Theatre Defence was to outfit two of the LPD-17's with 155mms (like the germans are testing with the PZH2000 turrets) while the third is
designed as a command ship with your Theatre Air Defence Systems.  The Spanish put an Aegis-Light package onto their F100-series frigates so I would bet if 
we're starting from empty hulls we could put a more than adequate system into an LPD-17.


Cheers all,



Matthew.


----------



## DJL (11 Jun 2004)

[quoteOf note, to Dragoon, re: AAW Destroyers I would contend that for the most part other than being better at knocking down incoming missiles, 
they are for the most part redundant.   This may be an unpopular opinion but a quick comparison of the ranges of Exocet/Harpoon/etc 
versus SM-2 and the math very quickly highlights the fact that the enemy will be able to fire and retreat before your destroyer can even
get a missile lock, much less fire and then chase an opposing aircraft after it turns away from your battlegroup having released its missiles.
]
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time follwing your logic here.......In one hand we have your "math" and in the other, we have the "math" of countless other Navies and defence contractors. I understand the latter's "math", but as I said, I fail to understand yours.....Please explain.



> In short, my take is that:
> 1)  We rarely need air protection
> 2)  If we do need air protection, the only way to go is a new carrier with JSF-C as they can create that all-important strategic depth necessary
> for our forces to be able to engage that incoming enemy aircraft prior to them launching thier antiship missiles.



So you would delete the area air defence ship, in favor of now buying not only a LHD/LPD, but a "proper" CVN? Thats quite the jump, a Nimitz like Carrier and Air Group is now looking to cost at least one and a half times our entire defence budget.



> My Canadian White Paper would therefore retire the (4) 280's outright and transition to a single small carrier which would form the centre
> of a new Expeditionary Forces Battlegroup (with (4) networked and upgraded Kingstons providing the close-in air defence against missiles that
> do manage to get launched as well as ASW protection).



You are joking right?



> What I was suggesting was that the crews for the transport ships are not very big and that the skill sets required can be handled by civilian seamen in worst case.
> 
> My understanding is that manning requirements for all vessels is falling so the likelihood is that the DDH replacement would require fewer bodies than the DDH themselves.  If 60 bodies could be removed from the manning requirement of each DDH couldn't they be reallocated to man 4 transport vessels according to the British model?



I got an idea, how about the Canadian government finance half a dozen 30-40k ton commercial RO/RO vessels. Have them built in one of South Korea/Norway/Spain, then lease them out to Cdn flag shipping companies (I'm thinking Washington Marine Group), with part of the contract allowing them to operate the ships for revenue, but they must allow for 1-2 of the ships to be available to DND within relatively short notice. (72 hrs?)



> To ex-dragoon,
> 
> I'm only presenting a viewpoint.  I thought the point of all message boards was to share viewpoints and learn from each others experiences, education and knowledge.
> 
> As such, if you think my idea is daft I'd love to hear to where the logic of my previous argument broke down.



IMHO, it would probably be faster to tell you were your logic didn't break down......but I've yet to find that.



> One though I had on Theatre Defence was to outfit two of the LPD-17's with 155mms (like the germans are testing with the PZH2000 turrets) while the third is
> designed as a command ship with your Theatre Air Defence Systems.  The Spanish put an Aegis-Light package onto their F100-series frigates so I would bet if
> we're starting from empty hulls we could put a more than adequate system into an LPD-17.



You want to use 6 inch guns for air defence? Kinda unconventional, but I suppose that the Japanese _did_ make "bird shot" for the Yamoto's 18 inchers  :-  (look how well that turned out)

So you now want to buy "empty" LPD-17 hulls, then intergrate "Aegis-light" (never heard of it) into some sort of "hybrid" ( I prefer iinbred. Why not spend _that_ money on tacking onto the end of the flight IIa Burke order?


----------



## ags281 (11 Jun 2004)

Definitely some interesting ideas going around here. Since I spouted off on a different thread yesterday on this topic without doing any homework first, I guess I'll try and put some numbers to my daydreaming here for comparison's sake (I must be getting bored - it's amazing how much time I have with my GF working out of town during the week   :). 

I'm assuming for convenience that there will be a net annual increase in sailors of 250 over the next 10-15 years, and that every single spot on a current ship can be filled but leaving zero relief crew.

1) 2005 to 2010:
1.1) 10 x Halifax upgrades. That's right, 10   . This frees up 2 x 225 = 450  sailors.----Cost: $1,000 million(not including the revenue from selling two)
1.2) 3 x AOR replacement. 160 crew per gives (2 x 365) - (3 x 160) = 250 for 700 total.----Cost: $1,000 million (#'s based on Amsterdam Class)
1.3) 1 x LPD (1st of 2) plus some LCU's. Uses 125 crew, leaving 575----Cost: $300 million (crew # based on Rotterdam, cost is a complete guess)
1.4) 1 x Ro-Ro (1st of 2; 10,000-15,000 tonnes) Crew ~20, leaving 555 sailors.----Cost:$150 million  (crew based on UK numbers, cost as per the LPD)
1.5) 20 x EH-101. The current order isn't big enough with attrition, and we need 4 or 5 more per LPD.----Cost: $1,000 million
1.6) There are still 555 sailors left. Their job is now to train the 1250 recruits that I'd like to see in these 5 years. These 1250 will in turn allow full crews of all vessels, and provide some much needed rotation between ship and shore duties, bringing us back to 0 free sailors.

2) 2010 to 2015:
2.1) 4 x Iroquois replacements (air defence + c/c). Crew of 200 per leaves 200 sailors extra from the 250 or so on each 280----Cost: $5,000 million (crew size based on Dutch/Spanish/German example, cost from CADRE estimate)
2.2) 1 x LPD (2nd of 2) as in 1.3, leaving 75 sailors.----Cost: $300 million
2.3) 1 x Ro-Ro (2nd of 2) as in 1.4, leaving about 50 crew----Cost: $150 million
2.4) Oh yeah... we recruited another 1250 since 2010, so make that 1300

3) 2015-2020:
3.1) 10 x frigate (~3,000 tonne FFH's). Crew of 130 per. There's 1300 crew just sitting around from 2.4. Coincidence? No. Mystery math? Yes   . We're now even on the crew----Cost: $4,000 million (#'s from recent European examples)
3.2) Those 10 ships need some birds... 15-20 x helicopters (type & exact number TBA)----Cost: $1,000 million or so
3.3) Recruiting (net growth) during these five years may continue as normal, or be slowed/halted if all needs for crew rotation have been met (keep in mind there's still that extra 555 people in a training role that will be free again once recruiting slows down).
3.4) From here on in it's back to slightly more routine procurements (eg Submarine, Halifax, and Kingston replacements all at roughly 1:1)


What we gain:
- 8 more frigates than we have now
- brand new air defence / command and control ships
- brand new AOR's (smaller but more of them)
- 2 LPD's, and 2 Ro-Ro's so we can actually deploy our own army (the money we saved by avoiding the Wasp can be used to get enough vehicles, weapons, body armour, and bodies to go inside of them for our army to actually fill the 4 ships)
- more helicopters.

What's the price?:
-$933 million per year
-salary/benefits for 1500 or so more people than what we need with the current fleet (~$100 million/yr???).
-associated training, etc costs as mentioned by others

Is it practical?:
-At $933 million a year, you can make the anchors out of solid gold plus promote 20 more unnecessary general ranks, and it'll still be within reach.
-Getting 250 extra recruits per year? If we can't reach that tiny goal then we don't deserve to have a military.

Ok, so I simplified the numbers a bit, but it's enough to give the basic idea. Of course the selling of 2 frigates initially could be avoided by just scrapping the Iroquois to free up the personnel instead (I just went with the frigates because I thought of it first). The extra 10 frigates later on are, naturally, optional but would help in running escort for the LPD's (though not getting them would make the plan incredibly affordable).

I also think the 2 ro-ro's should be donated to the Canadian people free of charge by Paul Martin (it's not like he doesn't have a few to give to a worthy cause) in exchange for our tax dollars that his government gave to their buddies. That's about as likely as my above plan being realistic given that we're going for the JSS deal. 

Chasing down all these numbers has sure made it clear to me that even a little bit would help us out a ridiculous amount.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jun 2004)

Can we add a Star Destroyer to that budget as well?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jun 2004)

As well, I have an interesting quote for all you junior admirals who advocate we look for big ticket items that will essentially put all our eggs into one basket....

_In future conflicts and crises, carrier and amphibious battlegroups will have to adjust constantly for a wide range of emerging threats: shallow water submarines, stand-off missiles, underwater mines, space-based surveillance, and unmanned aeriel vehicles.   Prudent response to these threats establishes where naval and amphibious operate, an that, in turn, establishes how far inland naval and amphibious forces can influence the action.   Sea-based forces are ideal targets for weapons of mass destruction when they attempt to execute forced entry operations from the sea.   The concentration of several thousand sailors, airmen, and Marines in an amphibious or Nimitz-class aircraft carrier risks single-point failure in future warfighting. (emphasis mine)

Col Douglas Macgregor, Breaking the Phalanx, pg 127_

Perhaps we are looking in the wrong direction (ie up, not down)....


----------



## DJL (11 Jun 2004)

Was Col Douglas Macgregor a Marine? I ask because the USN has no plans to "get smaller" Phibs or Carriers in the near future (leaner crews perhaps), but after reading a few things in print and over the net, the Marines seem to be looking to get "bigger" in terms of shipping (Sea Base and Wasp plug plus) so as to be able to incoperate new, larger kit (AAAV/Osprey/HLCAC/F-35B).

Col Macgregor's point reminds of those that have said that the MBT is a cold war dinosaur.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jun 2004)

> What I was suggesting was that the crews for the transport ships are not very big and that the skill sets required can be handled by civilian seamen in worst case.
> 
> My understanding is that manning requirements for all vessels is falling so the likelihood is that the DDH replacement would require fewer bodies than the DDH themselves.  If 60 bodies could be removed from the manning requirement of each DDH couldn't they be reallocated to man 4 transport vessels according to the British model?
> 
> ...



An equally valid concept.  Similar logic could be applied to heavy lift strategic aircraft.  Just have to guarantee that a sufficient portion of the fleet is available on the notice demanded.

As to the defence of the vessels and/or use of vessels in times of war, reservists with bolt on weapons packages maybe? and how were the liner Canberra and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor crewed by the Brits in the Falklands?


----------



## ags281 (11 Jun 2004)

> ...for all you junior admirals who advocate we look for big ticket items that will essentially put all our eggs into one basket....



Infanteer:

That's exactly why I didn't include any LHA or other monstrosity in my plan. It's not an elaborate amphibious battle group, just a flexible means of moving a group that's too large to get where they're needed by airlift alone. The entire starting point for my daydreaming was to outline a moderate sealift capability while keeping things relatively "small ticket" and breaking up the capabilities that actually are going to be put "into one basket" in real life with the JSS. If you don't think my approach worked, that's fine. However, if you have this figured out, how about giving a few ideas on how you would do it differently. I'd rather hear what you think can be done than what you think can't.

Getting down to bare minimum requirements (it was imagination after all), and pulling things we're getting independent of JSS (280 replacement, Halifax upgrade,   and personnel to ease the current strain on the navy) from the cost, my list becomes:

-3 AOR's ($1000 million)
-2 ro-ro's ($400 million - bigger than before, with hangar facilities and half troops/half equipment to compensate for no LPD)
-8 helicopters ($400 million)   2-3 for each ro-ro, remainder for maintenance rotation
-no additionnal personnel are required, as it takes less to crew the above than our current AOR's alone.

Over the years 2005-2015 that would cost $180 million annually to gain sealift (to estabilished ports only - there goes some flexibility with the LPD's) and replace the AOR's. That's not all that shabby, though with the ro-ro's taking over the entire transport role they've pretty much become very large targets anyway and might as well be built as command ships too. So much for decentralizing things.

Anyway, that's enough thought about navy stuff to last me for quite a while.  

Ta


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jun 2004)

DJL said:
			
		

> Was Col Douglas Macgregor a Marine? I ask because the USN has no plans to "get smaller" Phibs or Carriers in the near future (leaner crews perhaps), but after reading a few things in print and over the net, the Marines seem to be looking to get "bigger" in terms of shipping (Sea Base and Wasp plug plus) so as to be able to incoperate new, larger kit (AAAV/Osprey/HLCAC/F-35B).
> 
> Col Macgregor's point reminds of those that have said that the MBT is a cold war dinosaur.



Well, your quite off the mark.  Col Macgregor is a US Cavalryman who led 2nd Squadron, 2 ACR in the first Gulf War.  Rather than a backward thinker, Macgregor is a proponent of the Information Age RMA, and sees a historical trend in the downsizing of an Army's key all arms formation as a important measure of success on the battlefield.  I would encourage people to pick up Breaking the Phalanx.  I am waiting to get my hands on his new book, Transformation Under Fire.  Although geared towards reform in the US Army, I believe his ideas are universally applicable to 21st century warfare.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jun 2004)

You'll have to excuse me because I'm new, but I'm confused whether I'm facing 
snide sarcasm or genuine dislike.

Who wants some of this?      :threat:

I'm kidding, but some of you guys need to take this less seriously....   ;D

Specifically DHL, the math as per my first post is follows:

An Air Launched Anti-shipping Missile can be fired from in excess of 100km's

Assuming you are trying to defend your Battlegroup with AAW Destroyers only, 
you would have difficulty locking onto an aircraft outside 50km.

MATH:   A low flying aircraft could have fired it's missile well outside your ability
to engage it and as such the best your vaunted AAW Destroyers are left to try 
to destroy the incoming missile rather than the aircraft that launched it.

On the other hand if you have JSF-C patrolling a perimeter between you and
the enemy force they would be able to intercept the aircraft before releasing
its payload.

Even better, with JSF you actually have the ability to destroy them on the
ground.

As to your claim that all the world's navies agree with your math instead of mine,
I would totally disagree.

All major powers are moving to carriers that can carry aircraft that have the
ability to intercept high-speed incoming aircraft.   One of the great lessons of
the Falklands War was that not even a Sea Harrier could protect a fleets from
long-range missile attack due to its limited range and speed.

Where AAW destroyers are being procured is to defend those expensive carriers
from the missiles you cannot hope to engage with their patrol aircraft.   In particular
ground launched sea-skimming missiles like the Silkworm-derivative that hit Kuwait
during the last war pose a real threat.

My bottom line:   There is an exponential return on investmentin terms of protection
and overall capability if you moved to JSF-C Small Carrier versus 4 new CADRE 
Destroyers and we should be willing to explore that alternative and not dismiss it 
out of hand.

Now once again I'll request comments, but ask everyone to please play nice.



Matthew.   :tank:

P.S.   You'll note that my program had $1.2 billion in upgrades to the Halifax-class
to better handle that close-in missile defence responsibility.   (RAM, etc.)     8)


----------



## DJL (11 Jun 2004)

> As to the defence of the vessels and/or use of vessels in times of war, reservists with bolt on weapons packages maybe? and how were the liner Canberra and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor crewed by the Brits in the Falklands?



That sounds like it might work, but I'm not too sure if any of the P&O (or other Brit flag) ships were armed in the Falklands, perhaps if Conveyor had of been armed with some sort of CIWS, the war might have been slightly shorter and a little less bloody for the kippers.



> Well, your quite off the mark.  Col Macgregor is a US Cavalryman who led 2nd Squadron, 2 ACR in the first Gulf War.  Rather than a backward thinker, Macgregor is a proponent of the Information Age RMA, and sees a historical trend in the downsizing of an Army's key all arms formation as a important measure of success on the battlefield.  I would encourage people to pick up Breaking the Phalanx.  I am waiting to get my hands on his new book, Transformation Under Fire.  Although geared towards reform in the US Army, I believe his ideas are universally applicable to 21st century warfare.



I do agree with you/Col Macgregor that yes indeed, net centric warfare is the way of the future (and not just for pickles) and the growing advances in computers/Comms etc must be made priority. I also agree with putting "all the eggs in one basket" is a bad thing, and should be avoided when possable, but as of yet, I'm not sure that all the technology is here to start "fighting the war of the future" (Eg Plastic Tanks, UCAVs, Trimaran hulled frigates), so until the time that this "stuff" reaches the shelf (The years later the CF) shouldn't we still be looking at kit that is proven to be useful today and into the near future?

Regardless, the Pongos still need to be given a ride to the fight and when there, supported. This is something that Canada should not have to beg, borrow or steal to get done, and with that said, I still would guess that a Plastic tanks would still need a lift into theater, just like a modern 70 ton MBT.


----------



## DJL (11 Jun 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt, two questions, why does the United States Navy, escort it's Carriers with numerous Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers, when all they need is "and Aircraft patrolling at a distance"? Also, what happens if the "Aircraft patrolling at a distance" isn't able to splash the enemy aircraft/missile? Now give it a think then let me know what you come up with.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jun 2004)

> Cdn Blackshirt, two questions, why does the United States Navy, escort it's Carriers with numerous Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers, when all they need is "and Aircraft patrolling at a distance"? Also, what happens if the "Aircraft patrolling at a distance" isn't able to splash the enemy aircraft/missile? Now give it a think then let me know what you come up with.



1)   I never contended that you don't need some sort of close-in support in order to try to protect your central core from the missiles that do get through.   In fact, I would argue that you need multiple surface combatants to create a protective ring around your key assets.   

My contention is that if you have to protect a core battlegroup carrying 1000-2000 Canadian soldiers and we already have 12 Frigates in inventory with a significant Anti-Missile Capability, in context of these existing assets I would argue that the addition of a single carrier carrying JSF-C provides the greater level of additional security going into a hostile environment.

Case in Point....

Battlegroup One (CADRE)
(3) Undetermined Large Transport Ships carrying 2000 Soldiers
(3) CADRE-class AAW Destroyers
(5) Halifax-class Frigates (Post-Midlife Upgrade assumeably with new Radar/RAM)

Battlegroup Two (WASP)
(3) Undetermined Large Transport Ships carrying 2000 soldiers
(1) Stretched Wasp Carrier with 12 JSF
(5) Halifax-class Frigates (Post-Midlife Upgrade assumeably with new Radar/RAM)

Bottom Line:   I would argue that for the extra cost that Battlegroup Two gives our Soldiers not only exponentially better defence during transit but as importantly can support them while on the ground with overwhelming airpower (JSF's would be a overmatch in any theatre).

Look forward to your response....

Cheers DJL,



Matthew.   

P.S.   I skipped #2 because I babbled during #1 and think I covered it too....     ;D


----------



## DJL (11 Jun 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt, you never answered my question, now go give her a think and by all means, get back to me. Well your at it, tell me why it is that a majority of NATO navies have either just completed, in the process of completing or have plans for in the near future of purchasing Area Air Defence ships?


----------



## DJL (11 Jun 2004)

And let me add, you are indeed the first that I've heard say the CPF have a "significant Anti-Missile Capability", could you expand on that? Perhaps, saying the CPF has the potentail to have a decent self defence capability in a low to medium threat environment is a more apt description.....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jun 2004)

> Cdn Blackshirt, you never answered my question, now go give her a think and by all means, get back to me. Well your at it, tell me why it is that a majority of NATO navies have either just completed, in the process of completing or have plans for in the near future of purchasing Area Air Defence ships?



First, I did answer it:
You incorrectly stated that I was in favour of an Air-only defence solution which I never did.
I've always contended that there needed to be a surface fleet escort.
I've always contended that they would be Halifax-class Frigates after their mid-life upgrade (which I assume includes new radar + RAM).

Next:
NATO navies are acquiring Area Air Defence Ships for different reasons.   The British Type 45 and Italian/French Horizon Class are designed specifically to protect their Carriers which they recognize as their primary asset in any battlespace.   The other nations are building smaller escort ships with improved AAW to act as part of a larger cooperative convoy on group deployments.

Now I'd like you to answer a question:
Since you are so willing to attack my model which places a small carrier with JSF (the real asset) as the centre of my battle group, please justify how your implied model (with CADRE) would better serve our soldiers either during transit or while deployed where they otherwise would have had JSF air cover?




Matthew.     ;D


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Jun 2004)

What is the RCN's dedicated task in the grand scheme of thing's?Re;NATO
ASW and Escort Duties for Naval Task Forces and Merchant Convoy Escort, this has not changed since the last War.

The JSS is a step in the right direction but1 or 2 Small Carriers with Harriers is also another good idea as the Harrier is a good Air to Air and Air to Ground platform and has proven this for years aslo we could use it in any terrain with in Canada as the Brits. have proven.
For Helo's bring back the Chinook for troop transport as it also gives a semi heavy lift capability from ship to shore.


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

> First, I did answer it:
> You incorrectly stated that I was in favour of an Air-only defence solution which I never did.
> I've always contended that there needed to be a surface fleet escort.
> I've always contended that they would be Halifax-class Frigates after their mid-life upgrade (which I assume includes new radar + RAM).



The CPF is not an air defence platform, I'd even doubt that it could defend itself against next generation Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles, let alone defend other ships.



> Next:
> NATO navies are acquiring Area Air Defence Ships for different reasons.  The British Type 45 and Italian/French Horizon Class are designed specifically to protect their Carriers which they recognize as their primary asset in any battlespace.  The other nations are building smaller escort ships with improved AAW to act as part of a larger cooperative convoy on group deployments.



Huh? So your saying that other countries are developing area air defence ships to *protect* other ships against airborne threats? As for your second sentence, do you know what you meant by that? What would be the purpose of an escort within a convoy? Could it be to defend the said ships within that convoy? Now here's a big leap, what would a AAW ship be doing within a convoy? Maybe defending against air threats?

So I'll ask you again, why do the Kippers, Americans, French and Italians have AAW ships to protect their "primary asset in any battlespace"? Also, why is it that you think it not to be prudent for Canada to have AAW assets to protect any of our potentail future "asset in any battlespace"? In other words why does it appear that whats good for the goose is not good for the gander? 



> Now I'd like you to answer a question:
> Since you are so willing to attack my model which places a small carrier with JSF (the real asset) as the centre of my battle group, please justify how your implied model (with CADRE) would better serve our soldiers either during transit or while deployed where they otherwise would have had JSF air cover?



Simple, my "battlegroup" has a layered defence with DDG and FFHs protecting the "real asset", where as yours has a handful of primary stealth attack aircraft, teamed with FFHs and modified Kingstons (you were joking?). Now please, why is it that your "battlegroup" does not need modern area air defence ships, when all other modern blue water navies do?


----------



## Spr.Earl (12 Jun 2004)

I will state again!

Our Navy,since WWII has and still maintains it's ASW,Escort roll with a new task of intediction,so get off all the grand wishes and ideas!

Remember we have a BEER Budget not CHAMPAGNE Budget!!!

Lets just start with the JSS,it's a begining.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2004)

Well said and well thought out DJL.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2004)

This damn argument I can't keep away from. Oh well....

AGS281>>>interesting numbers for sailors but what about attrition? We are losing 400-600 a year through retirements or releases. So you are not getting ahead.
Cdn Blackshirt>>>> not sure if you ever watched carrier ops but planes don't launch in real rough weather and if you ever been to sea you would know especially in the Atlantic how fast a storm can come up. What ahppens to your overhead cover then? The only thing you have left is your air defence platform...oh wait you don't need those because your JSF is protecting you. Well the frigates would be around to fish whats left of your survivors out of the water. Also Kingstons???? I am not going to say anymore about them because again your point out yur vast naval knowledge to me once again lol.

Cdn Blackshirt said:
*I'm kidding, but some of you guys need to take this less seriously*
Excuse me but this is my job and what I do for a living. I make comments and you dismiss them outright even though I do this all the time! So your damn rights I take this seriously. This is like telling the armoured guys they don't need their tanks anymore...


----------



## Slim (12 Jun 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Now I'd like you to answer a question:
> Since you are so willing to attack my model which places a small carrier with JSF (the real asset) as the centre of my battle group, please justify how your implied model (with CADRE) would better serve our soldiers either during transit or while deployed where they otherwise would have had JSF air cover?
> 
> Matthew.     ;D



Matthew

As an outsider in this discussion I would like to suggest you take a step back and not be so confrontational with others when you "suggest" courses of action and whatnot.

Ex-dragoon has been in the Navy for over 10 years and does know exactly what he's talking about. You could learn from him and others ininstead of jumping in with both feet and being confrontational.

Just a thought.

Slim


----------



## ags281 (12 Jun 2004)

> AGS281>>>interesting numbers for sailors but what about attrition? We are losing 400-600 a year through retirements or releases. So you are not getting ahead.



In with my initial idea, I was sticking with the assumption that the plan was to increase the size of the forces (seeing as this was originally a post on the conservatives' defence plan). My plan was for a _net_ average increase of 250 per year to the navy, not just 250 total new people a year, hence why a few hundred training personnel were assigned. I don't think that's all that ambitious. If someone with authority were to actually take a serious look at cleaning up the recruiting process - including courses and initial career progression in the two years following (IMO this should be done whether we plan to expand recruiting or not for morale reasons) - and efforts were to be stepped up a notch in the offices (i.e. a couple more people in recruiting offices who are committed to a long-term assignment in recruiting; I'm not suggesting people are not pulling their weight currently), I feel this figure is more than attainable.

With the second (realistic) option I put forward, it would actually cut down on the number of crew required over what we currently have committed to our AOR's. Not only this, but for tasks requiring only an AOR and not any lift capability, or vice versa, separate vessels could do the same task with more people left back at home to rest up for their next sea duty.

This brings up a question: does anyone have figures on how many people are going to be needed to crew a JSS? If it's somewhere near what we need to crew our current AOR's then I'd say my realistic (second) option is looking even better than it did before. It would provide more flexibility for crew to get some down time, have the same capabilities as a JSS, and would come at a roughly equal cost. Am I missing something, or could this work?

(edited b/c apparently I can't speel)


----------



## ags281 (12 Jun 2004)

Oh yeah, regarding the CADRE issue, I'm with Dragoon.

Let's work on fixing the basics first, shall we? Get a bit of lift, and update our current capabilities before complicating doctrine needlessly. We need the jobs currently assigned to our 280's to remain relevant within NATO etc, so CADRE is definately needed to replace them. If we can get the basics fixed first, then later on down the road we can look at a something with a modest air detachment on board if it's determined that offensive airborne firepower from a sea platform could be useful for us.

Modern ships seem to be doing the same jobs but with less crew required, so CADRE hopefully will take less crew than the 280's (with our current procurement process though *cough* MGS *cough* you never know). Also, when the Halifax Class is replaced, the new ships should also have smaller crews. This would allow us to start thinking about additional capabilities _around the time of the Halifax replacement _ (not the current upgrade). If the size of the navy is modestly increased as well, then perhaps we could start looking at a command ship or two with a modest air detachment. If we want to get more than the air power, then maybe LHA or something, fine. As far as I'm concerned though, the seaborne fighter capability debate is one or two decades away, with implementation three or so decades from now.

Trying to run before you can walk only gets you a close-up view of the dirt.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2004)

Ex-Dragoon

Question for you.   

As I understand it, it is going to cost us 2100 Million Canadian Dollars to build three JSS's, not including cost over runs.   

4 Bay class LSL's (16,000 tonnes) cost the Brits less than 640 Million Canadian Dollars and are crewed in total by roughly the same number of seamen as currently man an AOR (recognizing that there are many trades in an AOR not directly related to sea-keeping). Apparently the British crew size is 60 all ranks per vessel vice, I believe, 247 all ranks for the AORs.

That means that at least 3   LSLs could be built and crewed for less cost than one JSS. (Might even leave some money for a degree of ice-strengthening).

I know that the fleet is designed to work with three AORs, however we have been limping along with two AORs for almost a decade now and the JSSs won't be on-line for at least another 7 years.

Could we look at replacing the purchase of the three JSSs with a purchase of 2 JSSs and 3 Transport ships?   

Also might not the removal of the transport task from the JSSs, and the resultant simplification in design, reduce the unit cost of the JSSs and eventually allow for the purchase of a third unit in any event?

Is that something you might consider doable?

Cheers mate. 

PS Based on information supplied in Flug Revue http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-17.htm and at the UK MOD's Defence Procurement Agency's site http://www.mod.uk/dpa/ipt/C17.htm one 16,000 tonne LSL capable of carrying 300 to 800 bodies plus transport and kit is cheaper than one (1) C-17.

The Budget for Squadron of 4 C17s leased for 7 years (750 Million Pounds or 1500 Million Canadian Dollars) would easily purchase 4 LSLs at 640 Million Canadian Dollars and leave money on the table for 23-24 EH-101 Utility or 23-24 C27J SAR/Transports or 11-12 C130J Hercules.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FREH101.htm
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-27J.htm
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-130J.htm
http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi

(Just to take the discussion away from a strictly "us against the navy" battle )


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2004)

Good points Kirkhill..the only thing I would change is 3 JSS and 2 dedicated transports of whatever class and type. With the navy down to 2 AORs for the past few years it has really hurt us especially on the east coast. With 3 we could get back up to snuff. Removal of the sealift capbility and turning the JSS back into AORs I think would save more money and cut down on a few more crew requirements. I don't know for sure as I don't know how the crew is being broken down (135 as I understand it right now).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2004)

AGS281>>>>well thought out. I will convert you to the darkside yet.


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

IMV, the AOR, Flex, MHP and the 280s replacement are the priority. With that said, those four programs are just replacing existing capabilities and if funded properly, should not pose any major problems intergrating into the current fleet. I'm sure everbody can agree on that.

Now were everybody's opinion seems to differ is in the area of adding to our current capacities. Now I'm an old fart and of the adage that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and because of that, I don't think that adding a small amphibious capability centered around 2-3 20K ton LHDs is out of our realm (if we start soon) in the next decade. Now AFAIK, our navy today works with USN Carrier Battlegroups and NATO, so we still have experience operating within larger task groups. 

Now if we were planning on getting the said LHD in about ten years, perhaps we could look into shifting from working with USN CVBGs to operating with MEUs (or what ever the Marines call them this week) and thus not only gain experience operating with large task groups, but a large task group that is dedicated to working in the littorals. Now I won't pretend to know much about the army, but perhaps added to our Navy shifting some resources to operating with the Marines, we could also start deploying reinforced company sized groups within a Marine Battalion landing teams so the pongos can become associated with littoral warfare and scopolamine  

I just think that if we think it through and are ready to pay for it, we should be able to do whatever we like (within reason).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2004)

We also have experience operating with ARGs (Amphibious Readiness Groups) so no you are correct we could easily switch from one to the other.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 Jun 2004)

Let me start over....

I apologize if I've upset anyone as it was not my intent.  I'm a big believer in debating ALL issues and although that requires a confrontation of paradigms it does not necessity a confrontation of personalities.  In short, I don't wish any ill-will towards any of you and am simply presenting a model that I think will work until I'm educated why it will not, at which point my model would be modified.  Short Version: Although I'm presenting a specific model - I'm here to learn....

On the issue at hand, I have made a number of assumptions in order to construct my alternate model that appear to be false.

Can either DJL or ex-dragoon clarify why the Halifax-class either at this point or during its mid-life upgrade will not be able to defend other assets against incoming missiles because that one assumption on my part is what validated a shift away from CADRE and to an alternative.

Additionally, how different are the radar/weapons/command structures/roles of deployed 280's versus CPF's.   I always assumed (not a soldier or a sailor) the CPF's and 280's would operate very much in the same mode scanning for Air/Sea/Sub threats at all times with the 280's being incrementally better at Air Defence and the CPF's being incrementally better at ASW.   If this is false and within the convoy they currently take much more specialized roles and their capability are exponentially different at those roles, please clarify.  As a final note, if you did decide that wanted the Halifax to become a more advanced multipurpose hull with significant AAW capability, could it not be modified for that role during its midlife upgrade just as the Tribals were with TRUMP at their midlife upgrade? (They were originally ASW platforms were they not?)

Thank you in advance,



Matthew.


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

> We also have experience operating with ARGs (Amphibious Readiness Groups) so no you are correct we could easily switch from one to the other



Is an ARG one in the same as a MEU?



> Can either DJL or ex-dragoon clarify why the Halifax-class either at this point or during its mid-life upgrade will not be able to defend other assets against incoming missiles because that one assumption on my part is what validated a shift away from CADRE and to an alternative.



Thats simple Cdn Blackshirt, the CPFs were not designed to provide air defence to a task group. It's like asking a Plumber to fix your car. The plumber was wasn't trained in mechanics, but (like TRUMP) if you throw enough money at him, you might be able to train him in some aspects of engine repair, but in the end you are paying through the nose to have a plumber fix your car, when it would have been cheaper to just get a mechanic.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2004)

DJL

It is my understanding that the ARG is the Group of Ships that carry an MEU.  The MEU is a light infantry battle group based on a Marine battalion, which includes 3 rifle companies (light), one HMMWV company (with HMGs, 40mm AGLs and TOWs) and a mortar platoon augmented by an LAV platoon, a tank platoon, an arty battery and an air defence platoon.

The ARG contributes Naval Gunfire Support  as well as a small force of Harriers and AH1 Cobras (about a dozen total).  The force also hase the equivalent of 3 recce platoons along with a strong Military Intelligence capability based on UAVs and other sensors.

MY Ideal........ Sorry, I momentarily swooned.

Be nice if we could reorganize as a bunch of MEUs but replace the HMMWV company with a LAV company.  Dreaming my life away here.


Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2004)

Oh yeah, I just remembered,  Janes Defence Weekly is reporting (has reported?) that the Marines are rethinking their small unit tactics.

Rather than 13 man sections operating in a battalion framework they are reorienting into 8 man sections that will operate as a pair of 4 man patrols.  This will allow them to influence (not necessarily dominate) more ground.  Presumably they feel they can do this because of the extended range, greater precision and greater effect of the fire support available to cover them.  Essentially they are creating more eyes on the ground to spot for the arty.

This structure is more in keeping with the policing role that they see being more in line with their duties in the future.  The marines have always been more comfortable in this role than the army having done it for over a hundred years (China and the Phillipines as well as the Caribean).

When required to fight a more conventional battle they will reform (presumably still with 8 man sections) as a battalion.

I see their posture as being of one hand forward, fingers splayed, maintaining contact with the locals (the rifle companies with attached HMMWVs acting as patrols) the other hand held in reserve as a fist ready to react (One of  with rifle companies mounted on AAAVs with the tanks, guns and air support).

Again, an interesting model for us to emulate I believe.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2004)

Kirkhill you are correct with regard to what the ARG and its relation to an MEU is.

Cdn Blackshirt...what you have to look at is ranges of the air defence platforms and their roles. The 280s are _Area Defence _ Destroyers, the Halifax class FFH are multi role frigates optimized for ASW with _Point Defence _ Sea Sparrows, in other words local which means own ship. Yes if someone is close by they can use it but its not as effective and besides operating in a Task Group, CPFs are usually away from the group to provide that degree of protection against a sub surface threat. SM2s carried on 280s have a range between 75-100km, the CPFs Sea Sparrows have a range of approx 15km and when you are speaking of supersonic sea skimmers thats not a lot of range to work with.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 Jun 2004)

Can you guys put the following link into context.   
*
http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2004/ct20040130.html*

I read it to mean that (4) full Aeges systems including the AN/SPY-1 Radars were being
acquired and would be installed for $258,000,000 (or $65m per copy).

Thanks in advance gentlemen.   I really do appreciate your help.



Matthew.


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

> Can you guys put the following link into context.
> 
> http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2004/ct20040130.html
> 
> ...



I'm not too sure what you want to know? After reading the first couple of lines:



> Lockheed Martin, Maritime Systems & Sensors, Moorestown, N.J., is being awarded a $258,675,871 fixed-price incentive *modification to previously awarded contract*  (N00024-01-C-5168) for three Navy fiscal year 2004 Aegis Weapons Systems (AWS) and one AWS for DDG 2318 Japanese Kongo class destroyer under the Foreign Military Sales Program.



I tend to lean towards this being a contract modification, to a previously awarded contract   I'm not sure what your looking for?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 Jun 2004)

Sorry, I'll clarify....

I read it as there is an existing contract.
They are adding to said contract an additional (4) systems at a cost of $268m (basically executing a purchase option).

Bottom Line:  Does the number $70m/copy sound right for an Aegis system installed?

Merci,



Matthew.


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

I honestly don't know. IMHO, if you look at the price the Americans are paying for a Flight IIA Burke (just under a billion dollars a copy), I'd guess that 70-100 million for Aegis sounds reasonable......I wouldn't quote it as gospel though.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 Jun 2004)

Just re: CADRE....why is we're trying to create a uniquely Canadian Solution 
when we could have teamed with the Australians on the Sea 4000 project,
or for that matter bought off-the-shelf Arleigh Burke's Flight II's?

Our politicians love to talk about our multi-lateralism, yet we don't seem to
take advantage of it in terms of military procurement.

Is there any one specific incident in the past where we did a group buy with
another nation and it bit us in the fanny?

Thanks again,



Matthew.


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

Even though I agree that teaming up with the Australians or buying Burkes straight form Northrop Grumman would be the best option, you have to look at it from a political point of view......Australians and Americans don't pay taxes and don't vote in Canadian elections.......

With that said, I was supprised when Martin announced the JSS project , that he didn't rule out purchasing from a foreign company.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jun 2004)

....which is strange because I thought I had read that we're definitely buying the JSS from a foreign builder.

I found this just baffling as I also recall reading something to the effect that through ACOA the Federal
Government has been paying Irving to close (or keep closed) their shipyards.

Has anyone else heard this?

Additionally:

RE:   The SEA 4000 project - If you go the nationalistic route, you could simply share the cost of the design
and blueprinting and then build them domestically.   (of note, these ships are getting spec'd out as costing
between $1.5b - $2.0b AUD per copy which is not cheap....)

RE:   Arleigh Burkes - We get preferential treatment as an arms supplier to the USA, so it wouldn't bother
me to reciprocate and buy preferentially from them if we're not going to make a homegrown solution.
I would also be willing to bet if you played the political card in Washington we could swap the purchase
of Arleigh Burkes for those surplus Kaiser AOR's that we would then re-fit in Canada for the JSS role.

Either that or tanks.   Tanks are good too....




Matthew.     ;D


----------



## DJL (13 Jun 2004)

Perhaps a deal on tanks........I wouldn't want single hulled tankers though, I'd rather a more conventional (and cheaper) AOR design though.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jun 2004)

Arrggg....


----------



## DJL (13 Jun 2004)

That would be perfect......and look.........it has a Pongo climbing up to the Crows nest on the mizzen


----------



## ags281 (13 Jun 2004)

> AGS281>>>>well thought out. I will convert you to the darkside yet.



I'd be happy to work with the navy. I'm too ugly to be scared of going to sea   . My one condition though is that I get to fly the helicopter. I guess that kind of rules out joining the darkside. Wait, they could always bring back flying fishies. I have to admit that them dark uniforms look spiffy, and girls dig the whites   ;D


On another note:

Crap... Infanteer's navy could kick our butts. They have both sabres AND monkeys. We're screwed!!! What we REALLY need is more swords. I'd say about $40 million to get one for every member of the forces, then another $20 million or so for the brass and associated staff to argue and produce paper about how many of each pattern (infantry, air, navy, artillery etc) swords we get. Do we still have the Oriole? If so, then Infanteer's going down!   >


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jun 2004)

The only problem with going the Arleigh Burke route is the ship is the size of a World War1 battleship...realistically it should be a cruiser. In comparison to the 290s the AB complement is 380 while the 280s is 285....length you have the ABs coming in at 510' and the 280s at 432'. In one package though we have it all but a lot of modifications I understand would have to go into it to make them command/flagships.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jun 2004)

Ex-dragoon,

Do you ever see the day when Canada will acquire a Tomahawk-equivalent?

I'm hoping your answer is yes, but I don't enough about the politics associated with it....

Thanks,



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jun 2004)

The next surface combatants are suppose to have a land attack capability, what that means your guess is as good as mine but Tomahawks have a negative connotation here in Canada which could prove disastrous to the party that decided to purchase them.


----------



## DJL (13 Jun 2004)

> The only problem with going the Arleigh Burke route is the ship is the size of a World War1 battleship...realistically it should be a cruiser. In comparison to the 290s the AB complement is 380 while the 280s is 285....length you have the ABs coming in at 510' and the 280s at 432'. In one package though we have it all but a lot of modifications I understand would have to go into it to make them command/flagships.



I guess that other thing would the hanger(s).......not a hope in hell you could get a EH-101/S-92 into on of them.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jun 2004)

What happens if you decide that the Canadian Industry component of an Arleigh Burke purchase would be the
developing and installation a proper hanger system?   In essence, you would have Northrop Grumman deliver
the vessels with an unfinished stern?

Based on this photo it looks as though there would be adequate room if you removed the quad-harpoon launcher
and relocated the Phalanx on top of the new structure.






Thanks again gentlemen,



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jun 2004)

Thats a Flight1 or the first batch of ABs to get built...the second batch have a hangar for the 2 Seahawks so they are a little diferent.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jun 2004)

Check out this websute...in particular the USS Winston Churchill and you will see the difference between the first and later batches.

http://gwardnet.d2g.com/mac/maccdale/index2.html


----------



## DJL (13 Jun 2004)

> What happens if you decide that the Canadian Industry component of an Arleigh Burke purchase would be the
> developing and installation a proper hanger system?  In essence, you would have Northrop Grumman deliver
> the vessels with an unfinished stern?
> 
> ...



Aft of the Harpoon/CIWS is also 64 Mk 41s........It would be kinda pointless IMV to go that far in removing "parts" off a Burke.....Probably be cheaper to buy a small order of SeaHawks or just go without a helicopter (don't like that option)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jun 2004)

Nor would the Task Froce commander like that idea either... for no Helicopter


----------



## DJL (13 Jun 2004)

*Note sure how to post pictures* Here's another link to flight II:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/ddg-80-22.jpg

I wonder if it would be possable to "split" the aft 64 VLS into two batches of 32. Then move both batches to the Port and Starboard of their current locations, then were the current Mk 41s are, locate a new single (slightly taller) Hanger......

Thats assuming that my "idea" wouldn't throw the ships stability out of whack.....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jun 2004)

Prob would not hurt the stability but you might cut down a hangar space for the helos and repair shops fwd of the hangar.


----------



## DJL (13 Jun 2004)

I was thinking that going with a single (taller) hanger, we could fit a single EH-101/S-92 instead of two seahawks into the beast. With that said, I'm now concerned that my "hybrid Burke" would need a larger flight deck for the larger helicopter....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jun 2004)

The AB can land a Sea King with no prob so it should take an EH101 with no difficulty.


----------



## DJL (13 Jun 2004)

Well thats one less worry.......too bad it's only in the "what if stage" of planning  :-\


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jun 2004)

I would also like to see our next generation of surface combatants be fitted out with multi mission UAVs.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jun 2004)

Thanks for the pictures and clarification guys.   Very cool.

Re: How to insert a picture directly: You just use the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 button
and it creates your html tags.

Of note any thoughts about the idea of either splitting the VLS 
or perhaps even turning the existing unit 90 degrees and pushing 
it towards the midship as such forming the back of the hangar area?

Thanks again,



Matthew.   

P.S.   If I use naval terminology incorrectly, please let me know....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jun 2004)

AGain that might interfere with hangar ops...


----------

