Russia's Mistral class LHDs: updates

[Baz]

What we need is to be Joint, and we're not!  This is why Hillier proposed SCTF, which I agreed with.

What we DON'T need is to replace the 280's with a blue water air defence and command ship; what we DON'T need is to replace the frigates with a blue water escort frigate, and what we DON'T need is to then build an AOR to fuel and supply the resulting Task Group.  We're the only "real" Navy busy building a blue water task group of escorts, that have nothing to escort!

In the meantime we are using those blue water escorts, up until lately, in a constabulary role.  What we are really doing is showing the flag...

So the question isn't about power, or self defence, or even money... its what role should the RCN really have.  I think it should truly be more multirole (not just play lip service); there, I would do this:
- engage with the AOPS, and turn them into a truly joint, littoral, arctic capable (but not icebreaking) multirole patrol and littoral maneuver ship
- get the two Mistrals, or even better two Canberra class, and make them multirole, and as well the Flagship with staff; one on each coast.  They would be the center of the Task Group... see roles of the task group later on
- add 12 Cyclones, fitted for but not with the mission kit... gives us up to 28 combat MH or up to 40 littoral maneuver aircraft
- 10 LCPs
- don't replace the 280's, the LHDs would be the flag
- get the two Berlin AORs (the are AORs, not JSS) to keep the Task Group supplied (not be the heart of it)
- lower the amount of Frigates to 8-10, make them closer to the Type 26 with a littoral mission bay and ramp, 64 cell VLS with Standard, ASROC, Tomahawk (would we still need Fixed Expeditionary Strike?), and ESSM, Harpoon X 8, 5" Gun, preferably two hangars (but in the TG the helos would be held on the LHD); if required Command Staff could be accommodated in the mission bay
- make the four Windsor's work
- have three configurable light battalions; one on each coast as "Marines," one in Trenton/Petawawa as air lift able.  Marine ones would include armour embarked.
- Make the Griffon's and Chinook's embarkable.
- Some type of persistent surveillance UAV embarked.

This would give us a quasi blue water capability and a littoral maneuver capability when we arrived.  The Task Group would have a robust C2 capability, good Air Defence as each of two Frigates could do it, pretty good ASW with the tails and concentrated ASW aircraft, some surface warfare ability.
- For ASW escort load up with around 10 ASW Cyclones, put one Frigate forward with the tail and one back with the LHD as an escort.  You could then keep two Cyclones airborne 24/7 and 1-2 on reactionary alert
- Antipiracy one Frigate can do itself
- We could show the flag on ops and exercises quite well.

My 2cents... but it won't happen as the services care more about being a "world class" whatever, rather than being joint... ironic as World Class everywhere else means doing what I just described.

Edited to add the Berlins.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Jeez Baz, what did the RCN do to you this morning? 

 

[Baz]

Jeez Baz, what did the RCN do to you this morning? 

Sometimes I blur the line between my internal thoughts and external ones... nothing in particular.

I've been wondering a lot lately if things have always been screwed up and I'm getting enough experience across the board to understand the extent of it, or if things are getting worse???

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

What we need is to be Joint, and we're not!  This is why Hillier proposed SCTF, which I agreed with.

What we DON'T need is to replace the 280's with a blue water air defence and command ship; what we DON'T need is to replace the frigates with a blue water escort frigate, and what we DON'T need is to then build an AOR to fuel and supply the resulting Task Group.  We're the only "real" Navy busy building a blue water task group of escorts, that have nothing to escort!

In the meantime we are using those blue water escorts, up until lately, in a constabulary role.  What we are really doing is showing the flag...

So the question isn't about power, or self defence, or even money... its what role should the RCN really have.  I think it should truly be more multirole (not just play lip service); there, I would do this:
- engage with the AOPS, and turn them into a truly joint, littoral, arctic capable (but not icebreaking) multirole patrol and littoral maneuver ship
- get the two Mistrals, or even better two Canberra class, and make them multirole, and as well the Flagship with staff; one on each coast.  They would be the center of the Task Group... see roles of the task group later on
- add 12 Cyclones, fitted for but not with the mission kit... gives us up to 28 combat MH or up to 40 littoral maneuver aircraft
- 10 LCPs
- don't replace the 280's, the LHDs would be the flag
- lower the amount of Frigates to 8-10, make them closer to the Type 26 with a littoral mission bay and ramp, 64 cell VLS with Standard, ASROC, Tomahawk (would we still need Fixed Expeditionary Strike?), and ESSM, Harpoon X 8, 5" Gun, preferably two hangars (but in the TG the helos would be held on the LHD); if required Command Staff could be accommodated in the mission bay
- make the four Windsor's work
- have three configurable light battalions; one on each coast as "Marines," one in Trenton/Petawawa as air lift able.  Marine ones would include armour embarked.
- Make the Griffon's and Chinook's embarkable.
- Some type of persistent surveillance UAV embarked.

This would give us a quasi blue water capability and a littoral maneuver capability when we arrived.  The Task Group would have a robust C2 capability, good Air Defence as each of two Frigates could do it, pretty good ASW with the tails and concentrated ASW aircraft, some surface warfare ability.
- For ASW escort load up with around 10 ASW Cyclones, put one Frigate forward with the tail and one back with the LHD as an escort.  You could then keep two Cyclones airborne 24/7 and 1-2 on reactionary alert
- Antipiracy one Frigate can do itself
- We could show the flag on ops and exercises quite well.

My 2cents... but it won't happen as the services care more about being a "world class" whatever, rather than being joint... ironic as World Class everywhere else means doing what I just described.

Baz,

The capabilities you just described would give us a true rapid reaction capability that is usually the justification I hear from people when they talk about needing these capabilities; however, does rapid reaction play to our fairly unique Canadian strengths?  Namely, TIME and SPACE and the considerable economic power we also wield.

I would argue it doesn't.  Firstly, we are surrounded by three oceans and our only land border just happens to be with our best drinking buddy to the South who happens to be 6'4 250lbs and wields a top of the line Louisville Slugger.  This means we have considerable SPACE between ourselves and our real enemies, none of which possess the sufficient combat power to strike us, short of a Nuclear Attack, in which case the attack would be a zero-sum game.  This means that we also have TIME on our side.  If we can take the time to plot a deliberate attack on someone, why would we opt for a hasty attack?

There is also an economic aspect to all of this which compliments our considerable advantage in TIME and SPACE.  We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and we have shown numerous times in our history that when threatened we will poney up the necessary money and build up the necessary combat power to achieve decisive overmatch against our enemies.

We managed to sustain a reasonably sized combat force for more than a decade in a country 10,000km away (Afghanistan) at very little, if any cost to the country.  We have a large industrial base, a wealth of natural resources and money to burn.  If we wanted to, we could very quickly mobilize a massive combat force to fight who ever decides to get under our skin enough.

Arguably, the biggest threats facing us are from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats from other States in which case we have world class special operations forces and niche capabilities such as the Communications Security Establishment which we can use to retaliate. 

Canada does not need a rapid reaction capability, we are better off using diplomacy and intrigue to achieve our aims and if we actually need to use combat power, well then we can leverage our considerable economic power to either pay to make the problem go away or take all the time in the world to build the force we need to crush whoever threatens us because we are far away and so are they and actually getting to us would inevitably take a lot of time and effort, something our enemies don't really have a lot of.

Better for us to continue investing in niche capabilities such as SOF, Cyber and Space and developing our ability to generate combat power when required through initiatives such as NSPS and support to the manufacturing sector who can be then be leveraged when we actually do go to war.

 

[GR66]

An excellent post.  We don't need this capability and like you said, we certainly can't afford it with our present funding level and ambition.  If we need sealift, we are better off renting it on an as-required basis.

While we may not "need" this capability I'd argue that it might perhaps be a more worthwhile capability than some that we currently have.  Realistically speaking two of the most important roles that the CF can fulfill (in my opinion anyway) are providing coalition political support for our key allies (i.e. the US) by being able to deploy forces anywhere in the world, and b) providing effective military capabilities that allow the US to bring it's full expeditionary capabilities to bear against an enemy.

I'd argue that a Mistral-type ship directly enhances both of these key defence priorities.  It would allow the CF to fly the flag and show support to our allies virtually anywhere in the world.  The scope of this support could run a wide range of operations from disaster relief/hospital facilities/civilian evacuation up to command of a naval task force or even projection of forces by air or sea where there is not fixed basing available.

A Mistral-type ship would also make for an excellent ASW platform.  If we (the West) ever do go to full-scale war against a near-peer enemy then (again in my opinion) the key to victory will be ensuring that the enemy is not able to prevent the US from deploying and supplying its military forces.  It was true in WWI, it was true in WWII and it will likely be true in the next major conflict.  Despite it's weaknesses the US military is still the dominant military force on the planet.  If forced to fight the US then a country like Russia or China's best hope would be to prevent American forces from reaching the conflict in the first place.  A Mistral-type ship to coordinate ASW defence of deploying US forces (supported by a larger, ASW corvette/frigate fleet) would likely have more true military value than a mechanized bridade group/division or a few dozen stealth fighter-bombers.

That's not the way our military is set up though.  So you're correct that we cannot afford to add these to the things we already have.  However, perhaps an intelligent defence policy would recognize the value of this capability and find the money to supply it.

:2c:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

cheaper to stay with the current power system and supply personal gear as required.  Things like computers, stereos, razors or whatever can be issued as part of crewing.  Any other gear can be bought in either voltage system from the manufacturer.  Re-wiring a ship of that size to 110 is a monumental and a potential show stopper.  As for names, Verrieres and Veritable would be appropriate.

Since it would be wired for a 220 I suspect you can leave most of the wiring intact and changing plugs and circuit breakers instead, going from 110 to 220 would be a deal breaker for sure. Seems Russia uses European electrical standards so adapting should not be to hard, but your idea is good as well

Others have done a better job responding to the need, it's my personal opinion that that we can use them and just how many experts predicted Canada would spend a decade in a COIN combat mission taking causalities in Afghanistan? The Mistrals and the C17 would give us the ability to support many types of missions which would help Canada on the geopolitical stage.
http://www.adaptelec.com/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=187

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

While we may not "need" this capability I'd argue that it might perhaps be a more worthwhile capability than some that we currently have.  Realistically speaking two of the most important roles that the CF can fulfill (in my opinion anyway) are providing coalition political support for our key allies (i.e. the US) by being able to deploy forces anywhere in the world, and b) providing effective military capabilities that allow the US to bring it's full expeditionary capabilities to bear against an enemy.

I'd argue that a Mistral-type ship directly enhances both of these key defence priorities.  It would allow the CF to fly the flag and show support to our allies virtually anywhere in the world.  The scope of this support could run a wide range of operations from disaster relief/hospital facilities/civilian evacuation up to command of a naval task force or even projection of forces by air or sea where there is not fixed basing available.

A Mistral-type ship would also make for an excellent ASW platform.  If we (the West) ever do go to full-scale war against a near-peer enemy then (again in my opinion) the key to victory will be ensuring that the enemy is not able to prevent the US from deploying and supplying its military forces.  It was true in WWI, it was true in WWII and it will likely be true in the next major conflict.  Despite it's weaknesses the US military is still the dominant military force on the planet.  If forced to fight the US then a country like Russia or China's best hope would be to prevent American forces from reaching the conflict in the first place.  A Mistral-type ship to coordinate ASW defence of deploying US forces (supported by a larger, ASW corvette/frigate fleet) would likely have more true military value than a mechanized bridade group/division or a few dozen stealth fighter-bombers.

That's not the way our military is set up though.  So you're correct that we cannot afford to add these to the things we already have.  However, perhaps an intelligent defence policy would recognize the value of this capability and find the money to supply it.

:2c:

How do you define an intelligent defence policy though?  Military folks will inevitably say bigger is better; however, military power is but one instrument of national power. 

You've also got:

National:
Geography
Resources
Population

Social:
Economic
Political
Military
Psychological
Informational

Is our military our most important element of national power?  I would argue it isn't which is why we don't take it particularly seriously.  This is why military folk don't make policy decisions because we will by default think our sector of national power is more important than all the rest.  It's as if we have heard of Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Jomini, etc... but haven't actually bothered to read any of their work.  This is probably true in the Canadian context as our Officer PD is really that bad.

As French statesman Georges Clemenceau said, "War is too important a business to be left to soldiers."

 

[George Wallace]

Since it would be wired for a 220 I suspect you can leave most of the wiring intact and changing plugs and circuit breakers instead, going from 110 to 220 would be a deal breaker for sure. Seems Russia uses European electrical standards so adapting should not be to hard, but your idea is good as well

That would be the simple solution for the volts and probably the most economical.  My question, having had to have electrical items converted from European to North American electrical standards, especially items with a clock, is the difference of "Cycles"?  Not technically savvy in electrical standards, would the difference in cycles be a simple fix as well?

 

[Baz]

Baz,

The capabilities you just described would give us a true rapid reaction capability that is usually the justification I hear from people when they talk about needing these capabilities; however, does rapid reaction play to our fairly unique Canadian strengths?  Namely, TIME and SPACE and the considerable economic power we also wield.

I would argue it doesn't.  Firstly, we are surrounded by three oceans and our only land border just happens to be with our best drinking buddy to the South who happens to be 6'4 250lbs and wields a top of the line Louisville Slugger.  This means we have considerable SPACE between ourselves and our real enemies, none of which possess the sufficient combat power to strike us, short of a Nuclear Attack, in which case the attack would be a zero-sum game.  This means that we also have TIME on our side.  If we can take the time to plot a deliberate attack on someone, why would we opt for a hasty attack?

There is also an economic aspect to all of this which compliments our considerable advantage in TIME and SPACE.  We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and we have shown numerous times in our history that when threatened we will poney up the necessary money and build up the necessary combat power to achieve decisive overmatch against our enemies.

We managed to sustain a reasonably sized combat force for more than a decade in a country 10,000km away (Afghanistan) at very little, if any cost to the country.  We have a large industrial base, a wealth of natural resources and money to burn.  If we wanted to, we could very quickly mobilize a massive combat force to fight who ever decides to get under our skin enough.

Arguably, the biggest threats facing us are from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats from other States in which case we have world class special operations forces and niche capabilities such as the Communications Security Establishment which we can use to retaliate. 

Canada does not need a rapid reaction capability, we are better off using diplomacy and intrigue to achieve our aims and if we actually need to use combat power, well then we can leverage our considerable economic power to either pay to make the problem go away or take all the time in the world to build the force we need to crush whoever threatens us because we are far away and so are they and actually getting to us would inevitably take a lot of time and effort, something our enemies don't really have a lot of.

Better for us to continue investing in niche capabilities such as SOF, Cyber and Space and developing our ability to generate combat power when required through initiatives such as NSPS and support to the manufacturing sector who can be then be leveraged when we actually do go to war.

I can live with that, although I don't agree with it... that doesn't say an LHD is the most useful thing to build our Navy around.  It certainly doesn't make sense to build it around a Destroyer as a command ship and an AOR to make a Canadian Task Group.  That means we are creating a Naval rapid reaction capability that has no real role when they get there (other than show the flag).

So: either have something like a Mistral or a Canberra (as a power projection Carrier is not logical), with a Task Group around it, that can be tasked configured, or have more AOPS (for Canadian Territorial Waters), around 8 Frigates roughly equivalent to the Halifax Class for the approaches, and two small tankers to fuel those Frigates and our Allies in our approaches.  The Frigates can handle the overseas commitments like anti-piracy.

We don't need to build up a blue water Task Group with nothing at its heart; so without something to build it around the first thing that goes is the Command Ship replacement, the second is the number of Frigates we have, and the third is a large AOR.  Keep all 28 Cyclones so some are available to support the AOPS, even if they have to base them at moving bases ashore to do so.

Edited to add: the current Canadian Task Group concept derives from escorting merchant convoy's across the Atlantic to reinforce Germany in the event of Russia coming west: is the best construct to continue to plan to fight the Cold War?  My own community is still struggling with its employment in its primary roles: ASW and ASuW, which we still do largely like we did in the Cold War; all the other MH communities I know have moved on.  Although we've been joking that we've come full circle and Canada will lead NATO back into Cold War capability...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Edited to add: the current Canadian Task Group concept derives from escorting merchant convoy's across the Atlantic to reinforce Germany in the event of Russia coming west: is the best construct to continue to plan to fight the Cold War?  My own community is still struggling with its employment in its primary roles: ASW and ASuW, which we still do largely like we did in the Cold War; all the other MH communities I know have moved on.  Although we've been joking that we've come full circle and Canada will lead NATO back into Cold War capability...

I hear yah man.  I played the whole Light Infantry game for years knowing full well that we we're chasing the dogs tail telling ourselves we were "Airborne" and practicing parachuting.  The Army loves to talk about light forces and rapid-reaction as long as someone else i.e. the Air Force is paying for it.

Lends some credibility to your call for "Jointness"

 

[Kirkhill]

Baz, GR66 -

Excellent.    We may not be agree to the "t" but certainly we are in harmony.

Drew - I have heard you make this argument before.

I still prefer Baz's rapier to your sledgehammer.

A rapid reaction force can be in AND out in a timely fashion while the other side is still trying to get their socks on.

The sledge hammer (Armoured Division) will arrive after the fact and will be trapped in place, hostage to other nations' political circumstances.  This will be even more true if you want to get the Division out in a hurry and don't have your own dedicated lift available.  Try chartering vessels for Dunkirk II.  How much does Katie cost then?

In terms of the "public relations" "bang for the buck" "punching above our weight" side of the coin - being there at the beginning is going to get you more headlines than being part of the "coalition of the willing" drinking beer at the local Gasthaus.

I understand all of our soft power attributes - and they are exactly as you describe them - but they do not obviate the need for supplying the government with good, serviceable, useable, hard tools.

With respect to the Armoured Div - I don't know if you really believe in the merits of the Medium-Heavy force or are just adjusted to the fact that the Army is vested in it and can't seem to find its way onto an alternate path.

For me, rather than money spent on armour plate I'd sooner money were spent on a full suite of Spike missiles (SR to NLOS and everything in between) and  a package of Mirabel assembled AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I find it dumbfounding that Air Force and Army officers constantly want to redraw the Navy without having a clue.

What is this constant attempt at reducing the number of frigates (as if it was a useless ship - when it is this time's single most useful and versatile warship class in current use in ALL the world's Navies) and then turning them into coastal defence patrol boats !!!

I said it before and I will say it again: Coastal defence for countries like Canada and the USA starts thousands of nautical miles away from the coasts. Basically, the front lines of the naval defence of canada are in the Caribbean (go fasts- drug trade), in the Mediterranean sea (Arab spring - human trafficking), in the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean (piracy). And the frigates and destroyers are the quintessential warriors of this defence. (besides, I dare anyone to take a look at the map of Canada and tell me where the ocean "approaches" are. It's everywhere around the country except the Prairies.) Moreover, you have to get over the Army (and to an extent Air Force) mindset that the job consists of defending a border. The role of the NAVY is to defend Canada and canadian interests on the world's oceans just as much if not more than merely preventing illegal landings on our coasts. The Navy is not primarily there to prevent armed landings, though it is one of the secondary missions.

The CTG concept was NOT born of the cold war convoy escort. It was born of the combination of the end of the cold war and the Falkland war, which showed the power of the pairing of destroyers and frigates (most famously the 22/42 and 21/42 combos of the Falkland war), and the need to provide an integrated group as the smallest "deployed" unit in order to maintain Canadian input in the command/decisions relevant to their employment. The validity of this concept (which has nothing to do with "escort work) was proven when during Gulf War I, Canada was given the command of the naval Support Area (including command over more than 40 warships from various coalition nations including the USA), the only nation other the the US to hold a Theatre level command.

And, no, task groups (or whole navies) are NOT and don't have to be built around a "heart" that they defend. A CTG is a useful and suitable group as is right now and it does let us punch above our weight, as demonstrated. A destroyer as command ship is ample enough. Admiral's staffs at sea are not sprawling affairs like shore based HQ's. Staffs of about twenty to twenty-five, which let the Admiral call upon eight to ten staffer on watch at all time are more than sufficient to command and control quite large naval formations.

Mistrals would be useful ships, and yes, they would be excellent national assets that would provide a greater capacity for combined operations (I use combined instead of joint for a very specific reason: IMO "joint" in Canada as been distorted to mean "operational support of the Army by the Air Force and Navy, under the command of the Army and for its land purpose only" or "Geographical command by a single commander over everything in the specified area [an Army approach], instead of a functional approach [Air Force's preference] or a mixed Functional/Geographic approach [the Navy's preference]).

Now, as far as the Mistral's are concerned, I see little problems with the conversion that would be necessary for their employment by Canada. As already indicated going to 110v from 220v is relatively easy: no need to make any changes for fitted equipment. As for general service, the wiring is probably sufficient, and it is just a matter of locally inserting step down transformers and frequency rectifiers, together with new fuse panels and plugs. The "electronics", that is comms and radars, were to be installed in Russia after arrival from France, as were the weapons and weapons systems. So they only carry Merchant navy minimal electronics at this stage and we can do the installation of whatever we may want upon arrival in canada. As for their defensive weapons, we have six CIWS on hand and countless .50 cal. from the decommissioned destroyers and AORS. That is sufficient.
 

 

[Baz]

OldGateBoatDriver,

I don't consider myself an Air Force Officer, I consider myself Naval Air... always have.  I think the RCN has a much better understanding of their role in the world than the RCAF (who DON'T understand joint, nor do most other Air Forces).  However, the RCN has less understanding of Joint, and Naval Air, than most other countries navies.

In a lot of ways the Canadian Task Group was designed around Cold War convoy escort, and then justified after the fact as a was to "punch above our weight."  To be fair, we no longer consider ourselves an ASW escort force, as everyone has put so much emphasis in AAW in training and Operations Other Than War (OOTW) in the real world, and ASW readiness has dropped as a result.  However, the construct remains.

I'll concede the point about Canada being given Command of an afloat group in the first Gulf War; ironically, it was to defend the support ships and Amphibs.  I'm not sure how grouping the CTG around a larger ship would have distracted from that.  Arguably it would have been better; the task group and Allied escorts are group around a mother multirole ship, and the AOR runs back and forth to keep it supplied (in that case, with suitable escort).  Edit to add: make sure that multirole ship has the ability to do RAS on one side, so it can keep the Task Group going while the AOR goes and gets more; it also as a significant VERTREP capability so that the rest of the task force doesn't have to RAS for some type of resupply.

Doesn't apply to the second Gulf excursion; the task group was broken up a large part of the time into its constituent pieces.  Not an argument against the concept, just an observation.

In Somalia, having a secure base we operated from (and people went home to) may have saved us some headaches.  Different scenario, but this is exactly what the Abraham Lincoln battlegroup did in Indonesia.  Disembarked the fixed air wing, loaded up on helicopters, kept the troops embarked at night, moved them ashore during the day, provided water and stores, replenished at night from the support ships; in short used a CVN as an excellent multipurpose ship to meet the need.  Can't do that with a destroyer or a Berlin.

Nobody cared about the Frigates, Destroyers, or Sea Kings for Katrina; they did care about the coast guard ship we sent, and they did care about the amphibs.  I know, I was a Maritime Battle Staff Watch Officer at US NORTHCOM at the time (well, more particularly I was the Battle Staff Officer of the CanadaCOM liaison admiral to NORTHCOM, but the watch was largely Naval centric; the other two watch officer were both MARS, and the only reason I was allowed to do it was I was Maritime Air).

I don't want to get rid of the Canadian Task Group, I want to make it more flexible.  My response was to RoyalDrew stating we don't need a reaction force; I was pointing out we already have one, but it is no where near as flexible as most other country's ones.  My opinion is that we'd be better off building it around a joint multirole vessel, which negates the need for the destroyers.  However, without the destroyers, we need proper air defense capable frigates; to round them out give them a flex deck as well.  Make the AOPS capable of doing small scale littoral effects.  Use the Berlins for what they are good at; keeping that task group supplied.

The reason I lowered the Frigates to 8-10 is to pay for it.  Truth be told, I'd rather other parts of the Air Force (read the fighters) be cut to do so; but that's probably not going to happen.  I know the Frigates are the work horses, and I understand the impact the bring in the international role they play, but something has to give.

I also don't want the Navy to be supporting the Army and Air Force; I'm a believer in from the sea and believe a proper command element embarked means you have less footprint ashore, making everything easier.  It also gives you a secure place to come back to.  The chances of the next thing looking like Afghanistan are slim; Western countries aren't going to want to get involved in that quagmire again.

I'll also admit my bias up front; when planning at SHAPE nobody cared where a 6 pack of fighters were, or a frigate/destroyer.  They did care about:
- where the shooters (ie Tomahawk) ships were
- where the carriers were
- where the amphibs were
Those three ships can influence events.

Another bias: I believe a robust Naval Air Group can deliver significant effects at all levels of conflict, especially when backed up by a smallish ground maneuver element.  Canada can't do that, and I'd argue there is very few people in Canada that understand that.  Unfortunately, there is very few people in the RCN that understand Naval Air at all, and even less in the RCAF.


Editted to add: yes the 21/42 and 22/42 combo did work well against the air threat; however, the reason they needed them was to protect the heart of the Task Groups: one being the carriers to provide air support, and one being the amphibs to actually deliver the effect.

Editted again to add: PS, my preferred Naval force structure is 4 LHD, 4 AOR, 4 Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 4 Submarines, 40-60 Cyclones (all fitted for the mission system but only 28 required) and 8 AOPS.  This would allow us to have 2 balanced task groups on each coast, alternating between high and low readiness, each consisting of 1 LHD, 1 AOR, 1 DDGH, 2-3 FFGH (with one available for independent ops if required), 1 SSK, 10 MH (held on the LHD but can det out as required), 1 AOPS, with 1 AOPS for National work.  However, this is unaffordable and ain't goin' to happen...

... and notice I included the MH as a pure Naval asset.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually Baz, two things:

First, I am happy to have found another MH man who thinks of himself as a Naval Aviator. I've only encountered another one in my career, about thirty years ago, and he had started in the RCN before unification. So BZ on that one.

Second, the real problem with the naval force structure you prefer is not that it is unaffordable, it is rather that it is affordable if you accept that it could only occur at the detriment of regional development (as the Aussie's have concluded), but no one in authority (and I think that includes the upper echelons of the Navy itself) understands how much of a force projection multiplier such a combination a naval assets could provide in ALL facets of the defence of Canada, and as a result is wiling to push for such structure. My sole difference with your proposed structure is that I would include six submarines vice four, that way, one could be deployed on each coast at all time (submarines spend a lot of time in long maintenance and refits).

p.s.: I think the lack of understanding of naval aviation in the Canadian Navy is simply the result of passing off of the the old naval officers that had known the Bonnie. The new ones coming up after have only known the embarked helicopters to be "air force" assets with ASW as function, manned by  personnel that did not seem too preoccupied with learning naval stuff. As a result, I think they merely see the helicopter as another ASW weapon to be employed when the Air Det commander tells the Captain its OK to use them. This could be remedied if (as you seem to suggest) the MH world truly was naval (i.e. served and remained in the Navy, possibly wearing nice black instead of light blue) and the officers worked their way up in that world, including getting their watch keeping tickets and ultimately ship's command (as used to be the case before we lost naval air altogether.)

 

[Baz]

OldGateBoatDriver

My differences of opinion to what you said are so small as to not be worth talking about.

There's more of us around then you think.  Unfortunately, we are so busy trying to just get the Cyclone in service given the stresses we are under, that we don't have much capacity to preach the message.

When asked (in a "poll") what I wanted for a new RCAF mess kit I replied the same one the RCN wears...

Something that doesn't help is the relative youth of the dets at sea... we need to get the Det Cdrs to have the checks in the box so early they haven't formulated a good grasp of Naval Warfare yet.  There's not enough dets for people like me to have one.

Maybe once we get the Cyclone in robust service, and when (if?) the number of dets starts to build back up, it will get better?

 

[NavyShooter]

As someone on the coal-face in the fleet right now, I'll simply ask.

"Where do you propose to get the crew?"

We are so short of the correctly trained/qualified people (particularly Cert 3/4 Stokers) that they're pier-head jumping at a rate I've not seen before.

NS

 

[CougarKing]

This ongoing lack of a decision must be annoying to Russia as well as the French shipbuilder who made the 2 LHDs.

Reuters

No decision yet on Mistral, France's Hollande says

(Reuters) - No decision has yet been taken on the future of France's suspended contract to deliver Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia, French President Francois Hollande said on Friday after meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"As far as the Mistral is concerned I have set the terms. Either the Mistral is delivered, which is not our decision as of today, or a repayment will be made in the form we have discussed," Hollande said at a news conference after the meeting in Yerevan, Armenia.

Separately, Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron told Reuters in Paris the French government would make sure the companies and workers involved were not affected.

"Technically we are ready so that this decision, if it is taken, will not damage the companies and workers involved," he said.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[SeaKingTacco]

OldGateBoatDriver

My differences of opinion to what you said are so small as to not be worth talking about.

There's more of us around then you think.  Unfortunately, we are so busy trying to just get the Cyclone in service given the stresses we are under, that we don't have much capacity to preach the message.

When asked (in a "poll") what I wanted for a new RCAF mess kit I replied the same one the RCN wears...

Something that doesn't help is the relative youth of the dets at sea... we need to get the Det Cdrs to have the checks in the box so early they haven't formulated a good grasp of Naval Warfare yet.  There's not enough dets for people like me to have one.

Maybe once we get the Cyclone in robust service, and when (if?) the number of dets starts to build back up, it will get better?

I count myself as a naval aviator. Sadly, that makes me pariah in the RCAF and not particularly well loved by the RCN, either. I find myself surrounded by young officers in both services too busy "getting ahead" to actually learn how to warfight. It is maddening.

But this has nothing much to do with with Mistrals...

 

[tomahawk6]

Buy the Japanese Izumo class helicopter destroyer.It can fly the Osprey and the F-35.Talk about versatile.

http://news.usni.org/2013/08/12/japanese-helicopter-destroyer-stir-regional-tensions

 

[Baz]

As someone on the coal-face in the fleet right now, I'll simply ask.

"Where do you propose to get the crew?"

We are so short of the correctly trained/qualified people (particularly Cert 3/4 Stokers) that they're pier-head jumping at a rate I've not seen before.

NS

To reiterate, I am quite certain we won't get a LHD, so for me this is a theoretical discussion.

That's why I said not replace the detroyers and lower the number of Frigates; ie make a choice due to lack of resources (which isn't just money, but enough money can solve a lot of them).

There are lots of RCN and MH trades that if we don't solve the manning, retention and training issues, we have a bigger problem... but that's the subject of a different thread.