Northern Waters

[drunknsubmrnr]

The Arctic Patrol Vessels are not equal to a destroyer in any ways , shape and form. How will we have better luck should these replace the 280???

I hope we get the destroyers, or something else that will get the job done. I agree that the AOPS will not be that ship, it's just all that I think we'll get any time soon.

If its an official reference then please do, we try not to deal with conjecture here.

Sure. It might take a while to track them down, but I'll post them in this thread..

For what? Another less then capable warship like the MCDVs? Thats like buying a Sherman tank when you can afford M1s.

My own thoughts are that maybe we can get by with fewer number of better ships, rather than the full Task Group concept.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Ha! who needs shore battries and minefields when we have Newfie politicans and strongly worded letters!!  ;D

Right! Send Snook and Buddy Wasisname to sort them out.

I am still digesting the link, I also notice the strait is not completely owned by Albania, although the issue of Territorial waters is quite prominent.

The strait was split between Greece and Albania, and Albania mined their part. The RN nearly lost a ship on the mines, and then forcibly cleared the minefield. Both parties took the issue to the ICJ, and the result is what you've got.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I hope we get the destroyers, or something else that will get the job done. I agree that the AOPS will not be that ship, it's just all that I think we'll get any time soon.

You and I both. Unlike CADRE and SCSC there seems to be a lot information coming down the pipeline. If it means anything we will see.

My own thoughts are that maybe we can get by with fewer number of better ships, rather than the full Task Group concept.

The TG concept is here to stay though. Its something we are practicing more and more. Not only does it help prepare our navy for command roles with our own, it also prepares us better for intergration with Coalition navies. Its a valuable tool for the military and not to mention Canada when we do send several ships overseas.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I agree that the Task Group concept will stay, but I'm not so sure that the way we do things will stay the same or even close to the way we're doing it now.

The Plan needs at this point at least 4 elements to a task group:

i) 5-7 helos for ASW/ASuW/MIO/VERTREP/Pizza delivery/etc

ii) An AOR for refuelling/replenishment

iii) 2-3 FFH for ASW/ASuW/MIO

iv) 1 DDH for ASW/AAW/ASuW/MIO/C3

I'm sure I've forgotten a few missions in there, but I think those are the main ones.

All of the current platforms we're using for the above are pretty much worn out. We're getting very capable replacements for the first two elements, but they're joint. The implication of their jointness is that they're basically CF assets, not Navy ones. Thats a big difference from the normal way we've operated. The FFH will be getting FELEX, which will certainly help but may have issues in high or even medium threat environments. We may or may not get replacements for the DDH. If we don't get new destroyers, we're going to have issues deploying a task group into medium or high threat environments because of the lack of AAW support. Even if we do get new destroyers the "jointness" of the new helo/AOR platforms may have issues with deploying a task group. ie if they're doing purple things, who's left to do the Navy things we've always done with those assets?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

  You covered the main ones. NGS is a role that is starting to creep back into the fleet at a very slow rate, with some procedures being updated and worked upon.

I don't think the CH148s will be as joint as you are worried about. To switch from an ASW helo to a troop lift is not as easy nor as fast as I believe the guys in suits are hoping it will be. As for the JSS, I think that if the Navy needs to do a RAS then the RAS will take precedence over landing vehicles. While I am a fan of multirole, you need enough platforms to cover off when needed. 3 JSS are not enough to do both the sea lift and to do replenishment at sea.

  Now if we got the MK41 launchers variant that can have 4 ESSMs per launcher for the Halifax class then I would not be as concerned as I am now for AAD. 64 ESSMs per frigate gives you some breathing room (not much) that may make the loss of the 280s more bearable. 16 ESSMs does not give anyone a warm fuzzy. So if the 280s go with no replacement then any capability we have for TG C3 is lost. That would be to the detriment of our Navy and our allies as well.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

We're doing NGS again? That's surprising.

All I know about CH148 jointness is that the program was slightly delayed and the budget was increased to allow them to quickly remove the ASW equipment and convert to something like a utility helo. This happened a couple of years ago. No idea about how fast "quickly" actually means.

For the JSS I'm not so much worried about the actual landing as what's required to support the landing. For instance, do the vehicles burn the same fuel as the ships? If not, some of the fuel meant for the ships will need to be offloaded. Also, what about supplies? There's only a certain amount of space on board for supplies. If they're carrying the ground forces supplies on the JSS, what happens when a frigates widget breaks and the spares have been offloaded?

It even gets down to food. Both soldiers and sailors eat the same food, but adding a few hundred mouths to the task group will make the available stores run down that much sooner.

I agree we need more JSS.

I don't think the CPF Mk 41 variant would really be necessary. The current version has 16 ESSM in single cells in the Mk 48 launcher, 8 on each side. That can be increased by either increasing the number of launchers to 12 cells per side (space and weight were reserved) or by using dual-cell launchers or both. Using both would give 48 ESSM.

However, the bottleneck is in the designation systems. The combat system architecture we're using requires the STIRs to track before launch and illuminate until the target is killed. That means the CPF is unlikely to be able to use more than 4-8 ESSM before a fights over one way or the other.

FELEX is supposed to reconfigure the ops room to allow a command function. It might be possible if the displays are replaced with something smaller, although they'll also need to find a staff locker for the staff and a monitor. Both the IC and 2IC of FELEX were previously Athabaskan CSEO's, so I'm sure they have an idea of what they want to do.