# Major Conflicts - Lessons Learned?



## MightyIndustry (18 Apr 2012)

At the beginning of 1939 canada had a naval force of about 11 combat vessels, and our navy turned to the Corvette to meet the need for escort vessels while the more complex and expensive construction of destroyers and frigates grew to meet the need. The corvette was a piece of crap, but at least it was something. 
Does anyone here think that with our fleet now at 12 frigates and 3 destroyers, that we should have learned a lesson from what happened in WWII?

Shouldn't we have a design in our back pocket (and a couple of training platforms) for something cheap, easy to build and with capabilities that meet the needs of an escort vessel in case there are major international developments in the future? Something we can develop while we have the luxury of time and resources? Testing and evaluating and improving various aspects of the design so that there is no scrambling at the last minute, and no disappointment with what we end up with?

Even during wartime when we can cut through red tape to build major combatants, a frigate would still take a year to crank out. And these new platforms...we might as well call them what they are, Cruisers, will take even longer if you include the advanced combat systems.  

Minor escort ships can be loaded with modular payloads and could take remote telemetry from the sonar and radar of one of the heavies, and just fire weapons - obviously having some basic sensor capability of their own.   Anti-Aircraft, anti-ship and anti-submarine payloads could be developed, and just replaced by the AORs after they are expended.

If North Korea nukes Yokosuka Japan and takes out the US Seventh Fleet (just for example...or India vs. Pakistan or Iran vs. Everyone else...), we're going to be "in it". We can conscript sailors, but we'll have no ships to put them on. It would take ALL our ships to protect a couple convoys in each direction with what we have now. The MCDVs wouldn't even...well ...anything...

So..First...Am I just being crazy?
Second... Is the nature of ocean warfare going to be different from what we saw during tha battle of the atlantic?
Finally...Any ideas about how this could be done?


----------



## aesop081 (18 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> that we should have learned a lesson from what happened in WWII?



Ok, what should we have learned ?



> meet the needs of an escort vessel



To escort what ?



> It would take ALL our ships to protect a couple convoys in each direction with what we have now.



Convoys to where ? To do what ?

Is there some massive naval threat out there i missed ?


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2012)

I'll take umbrage with you about the Corvette.  It was not a battleship, cruiser or even a destroyer but it was not a piece of crap.  It did a tremendous job, was the backbone of the war in the Atlantic and served the Allies well.  While it was able to be swiftly produced, don't cut them short.  They were the right ship for the time and the job required.

As for having things in the back pocket.  Things don't work like that.  Today's vessels are too complex and cannot be designed at the drop of a hat.  There is a huge amount of engineering, planning and forethought in each and every type of ship that's made.  I know it is frustrating that systems take such a long time from concept to delivery.  But is the way of it all nowadays.  As a end user of what we procure I don't want some rushed POS just to make a political point or make due.  It's not a car or truck.  If a truck breaks down or the wheels fall off you'll probably be OK and can walk home.  Maybe not so with a ship.  We have already had the Army suffer from political expediency with such mega designs as he LSVW etc.  I'd like to give that a miss, thanks.


----------



## Stoker (18 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> If North Korea nukes Yokosuka Japan and takes out the US Seventh Fleet (just for example...or India vs. Pakistan or Iran vs. Everyone else...), we're going to be "in it". We can conscript sailors, but we'll have no ships to put them on. It would take ALL our ships to protect a couple convoys in each direction with what we have now. The MCDVs wouldn't even...well ...anything...



I assume as providing crews to possible shortage for front line ships, MCDV's would be utilized in a harbour defence, Mine Warfare role and anything else that would free up assets.


----------



## MightyIndustry (18 Apr 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'll take umbrage with you about the Corvette.  It was not a battleship, cruiser or even a destroyer but it was not a piece of crap.  It did a tremendous job, was the backbone of the war in the Atlantic and served the Allies well.  While it was able to be swiftly produced, don't cut them short.  They were the right ship for the time and the job required.



Sorry. I did cut them a bit short, and "crap" was the wrong thing to say. But you won't convince me that they were the right ship for the time or the job. They were slower on the surface than a submerged U-boat and, at least initially, insufficiently armed to execute their duties. You MUST have heard the story of the corvettes that had to sail with wooden guns on their decks because there were none to outfit them with. The U-boats, after a time, didn't consider them a serious threat because of their shortcomings. More like a blind man with a machine gun - if you just stand there you'll probably get shot.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As for having things in the back pocket.  Things don't work like that.  Today's vessels are too complex and cannot be designed at the drop of a hat.  There is a huge amount of engineering, planning and forethought in each and every type of ship that's made.  I know it is frustrating that systems take such a long time from concept to delivery.  But is the way of it all nowadays.  As a end user of what we procure I don't want some rushed POS just to make a political point or make due.  It's not a car or truck.  If a truck breaks down or the wheels fall off you'll probably be OK and can walk home.  Maybe not so with a ship.  We have already had the Army suffer from political expediency with such mega designs as he LSVW etc.  I'd like to give that a miss, thanks.



But this is what I mean! A design, already worked out, with training ships already rolled out, with production process and outfitting already figured out, just waiting for someone to push the GO button when we need them (I'm not saying that tooling would be left around to collect dust). Instead of blank stares all around, when we suddenly have 60,000 conscripts in basic and ships for only 800 of them in the forseable future.


----------



## Stoker (18 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Sorry. I did cut them a bit short, and "crap" was the wrong thing to say. But you won't convince me that they were the right ship for the time or the job. They were slower on the surface than a submerged U-boat and, at least initially, insufficiently armed to execute their duties. You MUST have heard the story of the corvettes that had to sail with wooden guns on their decks because there were none to outfit them with. The U-boats, after a time, didn't consider them a serious threat because of their shortcomings. More like a blind man with a machine gun - if you just stand there you'll probably get shot.
> 
> But this is what I mean! A design, already worked out, with training ships already rolled out, with production process and outfitting already figured out, just waiting for someone to push the GO button when we need them (I'm not saying that tooling would be left around to collect dust). Instead of blank stares all around, when we suddenly have 60,000 conscripts in basic and ships for only 800 of them in the foreseeable future.



More than one sub is on the bottom because of the corvettes. Yes initially they did have dummy guns because there weren't enough to go around, that only lasted for a short period of time.

Its fine to say have a design worked out but the equipment to go into them is constantly changing, not to mention the lead time for the supply chain to build them. Who's going to build them SNC Lavlin? As for the 60000 conscript's you mention in WW2 you could train them relatively fast however with modern technology it takes years to train technicians and any conflict will be most likely be over in a relatively short period of time.


----------



## MightyIndustry (18 Apr 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Ok, what should we have learned ?
> 
> To escort what ?
> 
> ...



Seriously dude?
We should have learned that: 
If you're going to maintain a naval force (or any other military contingent) at minimal levels in peace time WITH the advanced knowlege of the relative change in scale that a major world conflict would require in said force, it is prudent to harbour plans to rapidly increase the scale of said force  both in terms of personnel and equipment. AND Unless you have a cookie cutter ship waiting in the wings, that you've already had a chance to try out, there may be some disapointment. Navies take longer to grow than armies and Air Forces.

Convoys to where? To do what?
To do what convoys do, obviously. Lets take Japan for example. North Korea and Vietnam are unpredictable threats in the region, while China's and Russia's political interests, at least for now, are in playing nice in the sandbox. If we had to move a battlegroup or battlegroups into Japan as either a staging move or a defensive move, they would go by ship; So would all the supplies the islands of Japan would need for survival in an every-day sort of way. 

Is there some massive naval threat out there i missed ?
Naval threat? This is 2012, and you claim some association with the airforce, and you haven't considered that a place like Japan could be bottled up by air power as well as a naval force? Vietnam has something like 44 warships, 6 nuclear submarines, and over 200 combat aircraft. North Korea is a bit sketchy, but they buy all the same crap from the russians and chinese, AND they're using their oil and coal money to buy this stuff - they're not broke by any means.

Now, having said that, we can always sit back and let the USA take care of the problem. But then, what would we be maintaining ANY military for in that case?


----------



## MightyIndustry (18 Apr 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> More than one sub is on the bottom because of the corvettes. Yes initially they did have dummy guns because there weren't enough to go around, that only lasted for a short period of time.
> 
> Its fine to say have a design worked out but the equipment to go into them is constantly changing, not to mention the lead time for the supply chain to build them. Who's going to build them SNC Lavlin? As for the 60000 conscript's you mention in WW2 you could train them relatively fast however with modern technology it takes years to train technicians and any conflict will be most likely be over in a relatively short period of time.



Again I go back to the posit that they have to be cheap and quick to build, AND that you have to build a couple to use as training platforms, AND use them to update the concept as time goes on, in order to meet new threats. You'd have to oufit them with the inexpensive, easy to acquire, domestic systems and weapons- stuff that's already in the chain.

But, I'll grant you that I might be wrong.
So, if we ever needed ships in a hurry; If not this then what?

PS:SNC Lavalin isn't a ship builder.


----------



## Stoker (18 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Again I go back to the posit that they have to be cheap and quick to build, AND that you have to build a couple to use as training platforms, AND use them to update the concept as time goes on, in order to meet new threats. You'd have to outfit them with the inexpensive, easy to acquire, domestic systems and weapons- stuff that's already in the chain.
> 
> But, I'll grant you that I might be wrong.
> So, if we ever needed ships in a hurry; If not this then what?
> ...



There is no such a thing in the ship building industry as cheap and quick to build and there is significant lead time to start such an major undertaking. Again where are the crews going to come from?
As for SNC Lavalin, they don't build them but they do maintain them although quite poorly at times.


----------



## MightyIndustry (18 Apr 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> There is no such a thing in the ship building industry as cheap and quick to build and there is significant lead time to start such an major undertaking. Again where are the crews going to come from?
> As for SNC Lavalin, they don't build them but they do maintain them although quite poorly at times.



Hitachi and Daewoo would disagree with your first statement. Conscripts to dilute the highly skilled regulars for your second statement. We're not talking about that - to your third statement  ;D.  So then If not this, then what?

PS: If you complain, they'll hire me a helper


----------



## aesop081 (19 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Seriously dude?




Yes, seriously. What you think we should have learned would certainly help frame the rest of your posts.



> Navies take longer to grow than armies and Air Forces.



They certainly do. But then again, we're not going on to fight WW2 style are we.




> North Korea and Vietnam are unpredictable threats in the region,



Do they have the capabilities to seriously interfere with a convoy from North America ? I think not.



> Naval threat?



Yes. Is Canada facing some massive naval threat ?



> This is 2012,



Thank you. Had not noticed.



> and you claim some association with the airforce, and you haven't considered that a place like Japan could be bottled up by air power as well as a naval force?



I am in fact in the RCAF and Naval air warfare is my more specific "specialization". Now that you have questioned my credentials, what are YOURS ?



> Vietnam has something like 44 warships, *6 nuclear submarines*, and over 200 combat aircraft.



Vietnam has 6 KILO-class diesel-electric submarines, not nuclear ones.

Its only modern combat aircraft are 68 SU-30s and 15 SU-27s. The rest are antiquated Mig-21s and SU-22s.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Sorry. I did cut them a bit short, and "crap" was the wrong thing to say. But you won't convince me that they were the right ship for the time or the job. They were slower on the surface than a submerged U-boat  and, at least initially, insufficiently armed to execute their duties. You MUST have heard the story of the corvettes that had to sail with wooden guns on their decks because there were none to outfit them with. The U-boats, after a time, didn't consider them a serious threat because of their shortcomings. More like a blind man with a machine gun - if you just stand there you'll probably get shot.
> 
> Surface speed Flower Class Corvette 16 knots Flower Class Corvette Submerged speed type Vll U Boat 7.6 knots Type Vll U Boat  I'll also agree with Chief Stoker that there were many U Boats that did not finish their patrols due to Corvettes sinking them.  As for capability and what they accomplished: for example HMCS Sackville escorted 30 convoys, over 1207 vesssels (no stats for 4 of the convoys) with the loss of only 10 merchants sunk and 3 damaged.  She heavily damaged U-43 and U-552 and drove off U-704.  If that is not value delivered, you need to give your head a shake.
> 
> ...


----------



## MightyIndustry (19 Apr 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I am in fact in the RCAF and Naval air warfare is my more specific "specialization". Now that you have questioned my credentials, what are YOURS ?



That's what we call a "straw man" argument. You should be in politics.

Anyway. Fair enough.
I have been sufficiently "Told".


----------



## aesop081 (19 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> I have been sufficiently "Told".



You have not been "told". I simply want you to explain what you are saying.

I am also still waiting for your answer as to what it is that you do.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> That's what we call a "straw man" argument.


I think that the only straw man here is the fact that you cannot provide a credible threat to justify your dream of a Navy-in-waiting, so you argue for some mythical need to defend Japanese convoys against straw-based attacks from China or Vietnam.

That's what _we_ call "trolling."


_Now_ you've been told. Happy?   


ps - I don't care what you do; I place more credence in what you actually post here.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> At the beginning of 1939 canada had a naval force of about 11 combat vessels, and our navy turned to the Corvette to meet the need for escort vessels while the more complex and expensive construction of destroyers and frigates grew to meet the need. The corvette was a piece of crap, but at least it was something.
> Does anyone here think that with our fleet now at 12 frigates and 3 destroyers, that we should have learned a lesson from what happened in WWII?


The corvette held the line and enabled 100s of merchant ships carrying vital supplies to get to where they needed to go. While I would like to see a bigger more capable fleet, we need sailors!



> Shouldn't we have a design in our back pocket (and a couple of training platforms) for something cheap, easy to build and with capabilities that meet the needs of an escort vessel in case there are major international developments in the future? Something we can develop while we have the luxury of time and resources? Testing and evaluating and improving various aspects of the design so that there is no scrambling at the last minute, and no disappointment with what we end up with?


Have you seen the trouble we are having trying to develop a new AOR?



> Even during wartime when we can cut through red tape to build major combatants, a frigate would still take a year to crank out. And these new platforms...we might as well call them what they are, Cruisers, will take even longer if you include the advanced combat systems.


ANd how do you figure they are cruisers? The data we have seen so far has them comparable to most modern destroyers and frigates  around today.



> Minor escort ships can be loaded with modular payloads and could take remote telemetry from the sonar and radar of one of the heavies, and just fire weapons - obviously having some basic sensor capability of their own.   Anti-Aircraft, anti-ship and anti-submarine payloads could be developed, and just replaced by the AORs after they are expended.


And when the bad guys can jam your control frequency what then? An Ops Room is busy enough with worrying about controlling another ships weapon and sensor systems.



> If North Korea nukes Yokosuka Japan and takes out the US Seventh Fleet (just for example...or India vs. Pakistan or Iran vs. Everyone else...), we're going to be "in it". We can conscript sailors, but we'll have no ships to put them on. It would take ALL our ships to protect a couple convoys in each direction with what we have now. The MCDVs wouldn't even...well ...anything...


Do you have a clue on how long it takes to train techs and operators? Its not that easy to take Joe Blow off the street and sit him down in front of a screen.



> So..First...Am I just being crazy?
> Second... Is the nature of ocean warfare going to be different from what we saw during tha battle of the atlantic?
> Finally...Any ideas about how this could be done?


Yes very much so. As was pointed out by others its not as cut and dry is you seem to think it is.



> North Korea and Vietnam are unpredictable threats in the region,


Vietnam has been playing nice lately, if anything they are most likely to come over on our side or remain neutral.

Senior members have asked for your credentials we are still waiting.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Apr 2012)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The corvette held the line and enabled 100s of merchant ships carrying vital supplies to get to where they needed to go. While I would like to see a bigger more capable fleet, we need sailors!



I'm a ready, willing and able sailor! But I the powers that be wont let me go back to sea, yet. :bowing:


----------



## Torlyn (20 Apr 2012)

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> That's what we call a "straw man" argument. You should be in politics.
> 
> Anyway. Fair enough.
> I have been sufficiently "Told".



Umm...  There's nothing "straw man" about his statement.  He's said that he is, as far as the CF goes, an SME for Naval aviation warfare.  He has, in no way, shape or form, misrepresented who he is, or where his opinions come from. 

It's funny, by definition, you, calling his statement a "straw man" argument, and thereby refuting it without offering any proof of why it should be refuted, DEFINES a straw man argument.  Hello, Pot, it's Kettle...   :

T


----------



## q_1966 (20 Apr 2012)

http://www.thebattleofatlanticmuseum.ca/styled-6/page43.html
Provides a picture comparison, and maybe a little more appreciation for the creature comforts that do not exist on older ships...air conditioning comes to mind as well.


----------



## MightyIndustry (20 Apr 2012)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Umm...  There's nothing "straw man" about his statement.  He's said that he is, as far as the CF goes, an SME for Naval aviation warfare.  He has, in no way, shape or form, misrepresented who he is, or where his opinions come from.
> 
> It's funny, by definition, you, calling his statement a "straw man" argument, and thereby refuting it without offering any proof of why it should be refuted, DEFINES a straw man argument.  Hello, Pot, it's Kettle...   :
> 
> T



Let me clarify. What I meant by "Straw Man", by its definition, is that I held one position in the arguement about naval doctrine, and he chose to modify my position into an attack on his credentials and make the debate about that. 
Which I was not doing-I was clumsily asking him to dig into his background and consider my point about beseiging an island using air power.


----------



## MightyIndustry (20 Apr 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You have not been "told". I simply want you to explain what you are saying.
> 
> I am also still waiting for your answer as to what it is that you do.



What I'm saying is - has anyone considered that we might need to grow a navy in a hurry, like before, and are we better prepared to? 
The answers I've gotten so far are 1. Don't be a dink, 2. Do some research before you make an idiot out of yourself, 3. No. We won't need to have a much larger navy in my lifetime 4. It takes a long time to train operators and maintainers. 
All perfectly valid answers.

My backgound is in ship design and construction-nothing else. I'm a recognized, provincially registered professional. 

I'm going to be sticking my foot in my mouth a few more times trying to gather a better understanding of the people who have to use the product. Every once in a while I'll get some wild idea into my head that I have to bounce off of people who have a better understanding of the problem than I do. 

I'm not meaning to be hostile or condescending- obviously I'm in no position to do that. And I'm prone to clumsy remarks and have a warped sense of humour.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Apr 2012)

My disagreement with what you said stems from my belief that will will not have any time to build any sort of Navy.

Any modern naval conflict will be over, or the decisive engagements will have already happened well before we could produce anything, no matter how "ready to go" the design is. In your Japan scenario, more warships will not solve the problem of enemy aircraft. Only more aircraft will do that. Warships are large vulnerable targets for an aircraft Long range standoff anti-ship missiles fired by tactical jets or bombers have exasperated the situation.

Further, i do not think that there is a credible threat to any sort of WW2-style convoys, nor do i think those convoys are necessary, but that is a matter of my opinion only.


----------

