Save Money and Get a Big Ship

[jollyjacktar]

The issue is actually getting into gun range. Yes, the rail gun is toted to have huge range, but will it be accurate against a moving warship? We don't have the capability to conduct over the horizon engagement with third party "active" targeting, so you're basically lobbing shells based on speed and direction, both of which change drastically during an engagement.

Right now, missiles are developing in capability much faster than missile defences. We don't have any actual engagement data involving modern missiles with which to assess our modern anti-missile defenses. So far, it looks like a case of MAD. You lob your missiles at me, and I lob my missiles at you, and we both die. The fleet with the most ship's wins. Bigger ships might also be able to eat a few missiles without being right offs.

From what I have seen on YouTube on missile tests against target ships, I don't know if even the big fellas could eat more than one missile before becoming a write off for all intents and purposes.

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.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”  - Albert Einstein

 

[Lumber]

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.

Possibly, but I think it would depend on who is fighting who, it terms of the relative sizes of their militaries. If the Chinese when to war with Japan, for example, they could sustain a 2:1 loss ration in terms of ship's and fighter air craft, and still come out on top (Eastern Front WWII, anyone?).

But there could be away that a major power, going up against an equally powerful enemy, could avoid this, and that would be with a preemptive strike. The US isn't stupid. They aren't going to advertise on CNN that they are declaring war on China/Russia, whichever. If relations got so bad that they were on the brink of war, I feel like the US, before advertising it to the public, would make a firm decision "the war is on". Long before this point, they'd have SSGNs siting outside major PLAN/RN naval basis, and SSNs shadowing any units at sea, and on the day they determine that they are past the tipping point, suddenly all the PLAN/RN ships are put out of action before the war even starts.

Hmm... I think I just described a American version of Pearl Harbour, so maybe I need to rework this theory...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I have similar misgivings except for one niggling thought. 
I think the army will take the cuts more than the navy.  The Navy is an invaluable tool for the government, especially Liberal governments all the way back to WWII.  Mac-King committed so much emphasis on the navy because it would avoid the casualties of the WWI with ground troops and was very resistant to committing an army to Europe.  Chrétien was similarly happy with the naval effort for the Gulf War.  The Cuban missile crisis, 911 response, etc...  The navy gets us more political brownie points with the US than ground troops usually do.  It gets more domestic brownie points as well (jobs jobs jobs).  And it's easily ignored nature doesn't bring up the nasty "combat" thoughts in the general media.  Trudeau's statement that he wants to "spend the money" on the navy is important.  It also makes much more strategic sense from a Canadian foreign (sorry GLOBAL) policy perspective when thinking about Canada's core strategic interests.  But we will see I suppose.  I expect there will be things we dislike and things we like in any policy review.

Just a small historical correction here Underway: Chretien had absolutely nothing to do with sending the navy into the Gulf War. In fact, that happened three years before he even became Prime Minister. It was PM Mulroney that sent the Navy to GW. (GW = 1990-91; PM Chretien = 1993-2003)

It was PM Chretien, however, that committed the CF to a huge increase of troops in AFG (from about 500-600 up to more than 2000) notwithstanding the fact that the CF leadership of the time told him we did not have the resources to do it (as was later confirmed by the Manley report, leading the Conservatives under PM Harper to acquire urgently many pieces of kit) in the early 2003, so he could then claim that he did not have any resources to put into the Iraq campaign.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Chretien also didn't want to go into Iraq because it would upset TotalFinaElf (Power Corp) assets in that country. Power Corp (and Chretien) stood to make millions if Saddam Hussein stayed in power. By tying us up in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be able to participate in Iraq.

Dated but relevant, even today as another Liberal PM, with ties to Power Corp, is in charge of our country.

More on link: http://www.primetimecrime.com/contributing/2005/20050120Gray.htm

Canadian Legacy: The familial and financial ins and outs of Canadian politics.

By Ann Jane Gray

Many puzzled Canadians have watched while Jean Chretien pursued an anti-American, pro-Saddam Hussein policy that is not in the best interests of Canada.  If Hussein had managed to retain power, Jean Chretien's family stood to make millions. We believe that much can be explained by examining the political and familial connections of the Prime Minister.

First it is necessary to understand that some federal (and provincial) politicians of all stripes belong to an exclusive club. Below you will read about the cast of characters and some of the known leading roles:

John Rae was the leading strategist for Jean Chretien's election campaign. He was formerly the Executive vice-president of Power Corp. He is the brother of Bob Rae, the former NDP premier of Ontario.

Bob Rae, while Premier of Ontario, appointed Maurice Strong as chairman of Ontario Hydro. The past CEO of Paul Desmarais' Power Corporation, Strong was appointed to the UN as a senior environmental adviser to the UN secretary-general and Chairman of the Earth Council. His area of responsibility was the Kyoto Accord.

Paul Martin, formerly the Finance Minister under the current regime is considered a shoo in for Prime Minister as Jean Chretien exits the scene in February of 2004. Martin was previously on the board of Power Corp and formerly on the board of Connaught Laboratories. Allegations have been made of Connaught's implication in the tainted blood scandal. Martin and a partner purchased Canada Steamship Lines from Paul Desmarais of Power Corp at extremely favorable terms. Martin later bought the partner out. What obligations does Martin owe to Power Corporation interests once he becomes Prime Minister? Martin registered many of his vessels out of the country in third world registries, thus evading Canadian income taxes. Third world crews working in third world conditions crew his third world registry ships. Canadians must question whether the morality of Martin's evading Canadian income taxes while Finance Minister is a matter of concern. (I watch foreign registered Canadian Steamship Lines freighters go by every day in the Great Lakes - recceguy)

Jean Chretien's daughter France is married to Andre Desmarais, the son of Paul Desmarais, of Power Corporation. Andre is on the board of multinational communications conglomerate Vivendi.  He runs Power Corporation. (estimated annual revenues $18-billion)

According to Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun, in Le Monde, December 1, 1994, Jean Chretien, while in France talked about how French-Canadians had been "humiliated"  by the English and how today they see themselves as "martyrs." He boasted he was getting his own revenge and we quote: "For example, I have just appointed an Acadian to the office of governor general. So the governor general is a francophone. The same is true, among others, of the prime minister, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Speaker of the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Finance."

Many Canadians will remember Jean Chretien's frequent trips to China. Andre Desmarais sits on the board of Peoples' Republic of China's China International Trust and Investment Corporation. This is considered to be the investment arm of the Chinese military. Through Project Sidewinder, the RCMP tried to investigate the links between the Prime Minister of Canada, Desmarais and China. and potential undue influence on Canadian politicians.  For more information on the China connection read the WatchDog article "Jean Chretien and the Sidewinder Report."

Jean Chretien supported the powerful third world bloc of the UN. He supported France, Germany and Russia whose oil and debt interests in Iraq apparently override any human rights violation or concerns. He could have another more immediate reason.  According to Diane Francis of the National Post, Paris-based TotalFinaElf's biggest shareholder is Paul Desmarais Sr. She also states in a recent article, "Canada's stance is all the more unacceptable because it aligns us with such soiled nations as France, Germany and Russia which made billions of dollars with Saddam Hussein, ran interference for him diplomatically and signed huge future oil contracts with his deposed regime." --End of quote. Paul Desmarais Jr. sits on the board of TotalFinaElf.

Totalfinael apparently now has a large share of the major oilsands project in Alberta. The Alberta Oilsands could be one of the two largest relatively untapped oil reserves in the world. It will not be in France's interests to have Alberta secede to become a new independent nation or to join with the United States.

So it seems apparent the the financial oil interests of Jean Chretien's family had a direct bearing on the stance Canada took in the recent liberation of Iraq.

Mitchell Sharp, while Finance Minister introduced Jean Chretien to politics. When Chretien became Prime Minister, Mitchell Sharpe was appointed as the famous dollar a year advisor to Chretien. Since 1981, Sharpe has been vice-Chairman of North American of the Trilateral Commission.

Daniel Johnson formerly Liberal leader in Quebec is credited for having delivered much federal spending to the Quebec based Power Corporation.

Brian Mulroney, the Conservative ex-Prime Minister is now on a dozen boards in corporate offices including some Power Corporation and Quebecor World. He is a lawyer and lobbyist for Power Corporation. Power Corp and Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec formed a Hong Kong-based Asian Group Inc. to assist China in developing its energy potential.
Sources claim Power Corp's legal interests in Asia are reportedly handled by a Hong Kong branch of Mulroney's Montreal law firm, Ogilvy Renault.

While in office, Pierre Trudeau's government (Prime Minister and a former Power Corp. lawyer) signed over millions to Power Corporation under federal grant programs. Desmarais was credited with funding his election campaign.

Power Corporation began as a broken down bus line in Ontario. He moved his company to Quebec where he purchased another bus line in Quebec City. Able to get the ear of government, Desmarais went from success to success. Today Power Corporation is a multi-national company with many subsidiaries, over-extended not surprisingly as government bailouts have always been there. Since the first of the year Bombardier has received $1.5 billion in loans for its planes. These low-interest loans made to countries such as Spain have allowed them to buy airplanes, thus enabling this troubled industry to stay afloat.

So we now have an elite club of Conservatives, (Mulroney) Liberals (Trudeau and Chretien) and the NDP (Bob Rae) all connected to Paul Desmarais and Power Corporation.

So, who's really pulling the strings in Ottawa? We just gave another forgivable loan to Bombardier (Power Corp) and the government is stalling on the pipelines. Perhaps to ensure that Desmarais oil gets to our east coast from the middle east in tankers?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

that was a trip down memory lane my blood pressure didn't need......

 

[AirDet]

Not exactly a Minstrel but interesting capability.

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

 

[FSTO]

Not exactly a Minstrel but interesting capability.

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

Brazil bought her.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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 

 

[OldSolduer]

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

You mean our current PM?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[AirDet]

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

 

[AirDet]

Don't forget, I'm a zoomie not a fishhead.
:tsktsk:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canada can't afford a helicopter carrier like Australia, because our GDP and population are smaller!!!!........oops

 

[jollyjacktar]

Canada can't afford a helicopter carrier like Australia, because our GDP and population are smaller!!!!........oops

Don't you mean political will?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I believe, jjt, that this was exactly Colin's point ... put in a sarcastic way.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes, OGBD, I believe you're quite correct.  I didn't have my sarcasm glasses on to read correctly.

 

[Cloud Cover]

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).

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[dapaterson]

Added bonus - supports a pivot toward the Pacific which we badly need.