My ideal navy (aka not holding my breath aka not in my wildest dreams)

[Cloud Cover]

The TES seems low, despite the fact the total in column 3 is about 1500 over!! [Ro-Ro figures] I would think the FMU's on each coast would significantly balloon from their present strength. Presumably the fleet schools would expand a tad as well, unless evening courses were re-instituted? Where do the shads fit in again?

 

[hugh19]

Don't forget to add in the sea/shore ratio which would mean about another 5000 people above your 11 to 12.

 

[GK .Dundas]

ex dragoon you 'd like the current German Navy well I think "Id like the the current Japanese Navy with some enhancements.....yeah I'm greedy. ;D

 

[NCRCrow]

dreamer.............it has taken almost 8 years to get 4 subs out.................

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

dreamer.............it has taken almost 8 years to get 4 subs out.................

My ideal navy (aka not holding my breath aka not in my wildest dreams)

 

[mr_jangles]

how come no one said we soud have kilos

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

how come no one said we soud have kilos

Because maybe I as the original author of this thread does not like them. It also goes with the ideal why so many people are so against buying Antonovs or Illuyshin aircraft to provide atrategic airlift, the possibility of poor quality spare parts and the distance of a that supplyline for those parts. The next reason why we should not get the kilo is if you look at all the nations that sail them they are nations we could or our allies could find themselves in conflict with. Friendly fire chances go up even more!

 

[aesop081]

how come no one said we soud have kilos

I don't want to have to decide if it's a freindly or ennemy kilo before i drop a Mk 46 on it !!

 

[NCRCrow]

The US might like have Canada to have Kilo's to train against???

 

[aesop081]

The US might like have Canada to have Kilo's to train against???

I refer you to my post right above yours and to Ex-Dragoon's post above mine !!!

 

[NCRCrow]

How many torps have we dropped in the last 50 yrs...ooops ....Iroquois....OP APOLLO Roto 2

I was just throwing that out there............ ;D

 

[aesop081]

How many torps have we dropped in the last 50 yrs...ooops ....Iroquois....OP APOLLO Roto 2

I was just throwing that out there............ ;D

LOL....i've heard that story a few times now actualy.

Although i agree with the training oportunity that you pointed out, the inherent risk is that submarines tend to be underwater and hard to identify.  Alo of countries out there have russian subs.  Some of those countries may be less than freindly. if we were ot start using the same subs as potential ennemies that would limit the deployement of our own subs.  its difficult enough to positively identify submerged subs...never mind trying to tell who's it is when it's all the same model.

Its not because we have not dropped any tops that we never will.....

 

[NCRCrow]

ASW is a dying discipline in the CF maritime environment. It used to be our niche in NATO but we have let that die.

From a sailors standpoint the emphasis definately is ASUW and MIO.

In the GOO/SAG, the MPA's were justing doing Surpic missions for us.

 

[aesop081]

ASW is a dying discipline in the CF maritime environment. It used to be our niche in NATO but we have let that die.

From a sailors standpoint the emphasis definately is ASUW and MIO.

In the GOO/SAG, the MPA's were justing doing Surpic missions for us.

ASW is a dying art due to the lack of training oportunities, limited number of aircraft, old electronics and too many operational tasks. ASUW is taking an icreasing importance in the operational focus of the MPA community but ASW is still an important skill to maintain as it is very perishable.  If we could victoria class going, the training oportunities will be better for ASW. But thats from an MPA guy's perspective.

 

[DJL]

First off, I must say that this topic has brought up many intresting ideas/concepts/dreams and even though some are out there, IMHO it's good to think and plan big........in the hopes that when the other side (in this case government) counters with their "plan", hopfully we end up with everything we need and some of what we would like.

Who would have honestly thought three years ago that a serving, Canadian CDS would bring up the prospect of a Canadian Amphib for instance?

Now the concepts that stand out the most to me, are Ex-Dragoon's proposal of setting up two expeditionary forces on each coast, a substantial increase in MCM assets, and the introduction of OPVs to the navy. So for the purpose of this topic, I hope to expand on Ex's ideas and at the same time making parts of them more fiscally palatable to a government and throw out a few of my own unorthodox ideas for target practice.

First off I'll steal Ex's idea of two expeditionary forces (one on each coast) and add my own twist. Now ideally, as I'm sure most would agree, these two forces should be able to operate as independently as possable and plausible, no need to re-fight Jutland or invade Iwo Jima, but if the need to defend Canadian, overseas intrests alone, where to arise, we could at least make a respectable effort in doing so.

Now all this talk of independent Canadian actions is not meant to take away from the more likely scenario, in which we would still be a part of a larger coalition. With that being the case, our expeditionary forces should be able to seamlessly intergrate with our allies, namely the Yanks. Now since any major conflict we may find ourselves a part of in the future, the Americans will, in all likelyhood, also be involved, I think we should further move towards the ability of total intergration within the USN in a time of war.

This could mean purchasing more American kit, implementing more American doctrine and tapping into, at a greater extent, the vast American fleet logistics train.........let the government decide as to what level though.

So my model of a Canadian, expeditionary force would be as follows:

1 LHD
1 DDG
2 FFH
2 LCS
1 SSK
1 AOR

So the combined resources, dedicated to expeditionary warfare, of the two martime commands would be double the above figures.

Now my unorthodox approach would be that the expeditionary force would be forward based (say Western Australia) and made up of assists (split roughly 50/50) from MARPAC and MARLANT 

The reason behind my madness, should be clear........

-less transit time

-Closer to any current or potential hotspots

-The potential to employ some sort of "Blue/Gold" (ala USN boomers) system of crew rotation

-Reduced burden on MARPAC and MARLANT for a major deployment


As for the rest of the navy, I'll borrow a page off the RN and call it the "Home Fleet". All remaining tasks (ie training, NATO commitments, sovereignty and maintenance etc) will be drawn out of the remaining pool of ships, which would be equally spread between the the two coasts. So each coast would have (not counting the expeditionary assists) :

1 DDG
4 FFH
4 LCS
2 SSK

(MARLANT would also receive two armed Icebreakers)

Then my final command would be organised along the lines as the RFA and MSC with each coast having:

1 Oilers
1 Dry stores ships
2 RO/ROs
plus various Auxiliary vessels (ie tugs, tenders etc)


So the entire fleet would be as follows:

2 LHD    Wasp "plug plus"
4 DDG    Burke "flight IIIs"
12 FFH    next generation Canadian design
12 LCS    off the shelf, American littoral combat ship
6 SSK    type 212?
2 Ice Breakers  USCG Healy class?
2 AOR    American AOX/ next generation Supply class
2 Oilers  off the shelf design (Henry Kaiser?)
2 AKE    Lewis and Clark?
4 RO/ROs Bob Hope class?


I've got my flash protection on so fire away 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

DJL my only question regarding your vision is why buy Henry Kaisers and Lewis and Clark class ships when your Supply class can carry a variety of cargoes including dry stores, fuel, food, bullets etc?

Ok so I have another question in regards to your vision lol. Why use Wasp class? Yes they are good ships and can embark Harriers but would it not be more econmoical for us to adopt an LPD instead?

 

[DJL]

DJL my only question regarding your vision is why buy Henry Kaisers and Lewis and Clark class ships when your Supply class can carry a variety of cargoes including dry stores, fuel, food, bullets etc?

I'd intend on offering up our four, civilian manned tankers and stores ship to the American's Military Sealift Command with an eye on in corpatering them into the US system of shuttle ships, which in turn resupply the larger US AOEs and in my plan would also supply our two large AORs well on deployment.

Ok so I have another question in regards to your vision lol. Why use Wasp class? Yes they are good ships and can embark Harriers but would it not be more econmoical for us to adopt an LPD instead?

I chose the extended Wasp class, since as of date, it's the only Amphib on the market that could carry an entire, light army battlegroup, a squadron of transport helicopters, a squadron of F-35Bs, plus a handful of utility and attack helicopters, not too metion, a 500 bed hospital (Which are only dwarfed by the two USNS hospital ships).

As for the price, sure it would cheaper to go with an LPD, but as you mentioned (among others), the CDS's vision looks to be towards an Amphib that can support the troops with helicopters, I expanded that vision to included fast air and a large hospital for the pongs.

With that said, I'm not married to the Wasp idea (though I am starting to get a wee bit smitten with it), I'd be more then willing to hear any other combo of ships to form the center of our expeditionary force.........Maybe an LPD-17 teamed with 25-30K ton Vtol CVL (like Italy's new baby carrier) or if money is tight (as it is) perhaps a single, smaller LHD like what the Aussies are buying or like what was shown on the Dutch website.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I chose the extended Wasp class, since as of date, it's the only Amphib on the market that could carry an entire, light army battlegroup, a squadron of transport helicopters, a squadron of F-35Bs, plus a handful of utility and attack helicopters, not too metion, a 500 bed hospital (Which are only dwarfed by the two USNS hospital ships).

More importantly, will there be room for enough beer to keep 3000 Canucks happy for a 6 or 8 month deployment?

This is a ship with a crew of ~1100, plus a combined army/af contingent of aroun 1800~ for a total approx. 2900 souls all told. Where do all these people come from, because I have a hard time believing there are that many willing participants in the army/af who would be willing to go to sea for the duration that these types of ships routinely perform. Having a ship like this sitting around in the dockyard so the crews can balance work/life is not an option, because this is a ship that must be routinely at sea in order to maintain skill sets, especially in a small military establishment like ours. 

 

[NavyShooter]

Whiskey,

I think you've hit one of the hardest nails right on the head.

Where do we get the people???

I personally think that it will be hard enough to man whatever new AOR type ship we end up getting, let alone a baby carrier or some sort.

Perhaps selling the MCDV's off to some other nation (before their lives are fully expended) and using that money to put towards a Litorral patrol vessel (construction of which would allow some shipyard experience to be maintained.)  with smaller crews than the current MCDV's, allowing easier crewing of them.

The beer is certainly an issue, but with replenishment containers of Keiths, we can get along.  (As long as no more Heiniken comes on board!)

I think that the Wasp class is a bit of a pipe dream.  If we got two of them, that'd mean 2000 sailors (Plus the training establishments, the support, etc) more to our navy to man them! 

Besides, can you think of the parking nightmare?  It takes 15 years to get a pass now...imagine having an extra couple thousand sailors in Halifax????

Anyhow, glad you have your anti-flash gear on. 

NavyShooter

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Navyshooter, the problem with selling off the MCDVs is we will lose what MCM capability we have and in this era of littoral ops where mines are a preferred weapon can be afford to give that up?