Author Topic: Save Money and Get a Big Ship  (Read 31589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2018, 12:29:23 »
Not exactly a Minstrel but interesting capability.

https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/an-ocean-of-opportunity/
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Online FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2018, 12:43:30 »

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2018, 12:49:14 »
I was just about to say the same thing: Airdet is behind his time with that two year old story.

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

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

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 222,232
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,192
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2018, 12:55:23 »


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

You mean our current PM? 😉
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2018, 13:01:48 »
Hole in one, Hamish!

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

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,476
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2018, 13:29:39 »
Not exactly a Minstrel but interesting capability.

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

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

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2018, 14:28:47 »
I was just about to say the same thing: Airdet is behind his time with that two year old story.

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

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

Just posing ideas since the Ministers are such an expensive boat.   ;D
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2018, 14:30:36 »
Don't forget, I'm a zoomie not a fishhead.
 :tsktsk:
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,476
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2018, 16:00:39 »
Canada can't afford a helicopter carrier like Australia, because our GDP and population are smaller!!!!........oops
 

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2018, 17:18:52 »
Canada can't afford a helicopter carrier like Australia, because our GDP and population are smaller!!!!........oops

Don't you mean political will?

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2018, 18:19:28 »
I believe, jjt, that this was exactly Colin's point ... put in a sarcastic way.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 18:29:03 by Oldgateboatdriver »

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2018, 18:48:55 »
Yes, OGBD, I believe you're quite correct.  I didn't have my sarcasm glasses on to read correctly.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,074
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2018, 19:25:42 »
So, just for arguments sake, lets assume that there was "political will" - I don't believe money is really the issue if there is political will, we are pretty good at borrowing :)

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

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

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




Living the lean life

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2018, 19:45:28 »
Here's why a country like Canada goes with a Mistral or  Ocean (or, my actual preference, a Canberra class):

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

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

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

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

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,600
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2018, 19:57:36 »
Added bonus - supports a pivot toward the Pacific which we badly need.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • New Member
  • *
  • 2,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2018, 20:38:53 »
I attended a lecture given by Gwynne Dyer a number of years ago and Dr. Dyer surmised that any big conventional war today would involve the powers that be lobbing missiles at each other with everyones high tech tanks, ships and planes destroyed after about two weeks.

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

Mr. Bogart,

Was that lecture possibly captured on video?

Michael

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,074
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2018, 21:41:51 »
Sure, of course there aren't 1000 sailors +++ marines and aircrew, thats why this whole thing is a "what if" even if it was a Canberra class or a Banana class (and I doubt the heads on a Canberra class can handle 1000 Diggers for much more than a week).

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

** https://archive.is/fuJZP
Living the lean life

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 548,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,047
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #42 on: May 29, 2018, 07:48:22 »
.... the Pacific, why do we need to pivot that way at all?? Our economic interests are already militarily covered by others.
And that, sadly, is the true Canadian way.    :not-again:


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

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #43 on: May 29, 2018, 07:59:50 »
And defines how you can tell you are someone else's colony.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,476
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #44 on: May 29, 2018, 10:37:27 »
Here's why a country like Canada goes with a Mistral or  Ocean (or, my actual preference, a Canberra class):

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

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

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

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

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

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #45 on: May 29, 2018, 11:54:34 »
My choice would be for a Canberra class.  I am surprised the Humanitarian Relief capabilities of such as ship wouldn't be appealing to the GoC, especially the one in power right now.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,476
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2018, 12:52:46 »
Likely as it means more helicopters needed and we all know how much Liberals love helicopter contracts :)

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #47 on: May 29, 2018, 13:19:16 »
In addition to helicopters each Big Ship, even with a minimalist civilian crew (20 to 50 Mariners), would require beans, blankets and bandages.   They are, after all, just floating warehouses that can relocate from crisis to crisis.

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

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

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

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,476
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2018, 13:50:48 »
Hi I am from Federal Fleet services and I am here to help you......  :D

and

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

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 63
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #49 on: August 07, 2018, 08:30:38 »
While the Canberra is a great ship, I do not believe Canada should enter into that costly vessel:
1.- Should some hundreds of soldiers be deployed by sea somewhere out from CAN, the best option would be along with our US allies: they could embark on their San Antonio, America or Wasp class LHDs / LPDs. Then use our frigates to escort them.
2.- The Canberra is a huge vessel and therefore a big and attractive target for enemies, with the need of at least a couple of well-armed escorts.
3.- Having just one would make it a precious treasure which in case of need the Government (of any colour) would rarely afford to lose. For US losing one LHD/LPD in combat means just one out of a dozen. To be capable to risk such kind of vessel on high-level scenarios, the navy should at least have 3 units (as with battleships in WWI). Otherwise in case of lose the moral impact would be enormous.

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

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

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

Sounds quite reasonable, does not?