Senate Committe hears proposal for Joint Task Force

[IceHawk]

Not to bud into things here too much but isn‘t there a big ol destroyer in BC with no crew because we don‘t have the manpower? If we can‘t even man an existing destroyer how could we possibly expect to acquire a new naval capability not to mention the fact that we don‘t currently own any aircraft to put on such a vessel other than the Sea Things and those aren‘t exactly the troop transports or anything else you‘d find on a small carrier....just a thought..

 

[Kirkhill]

Ex-Dragoon
As I understand it you‘re right they are primarily replacements for the AOR replenishment at sea role. However with something like 5 x the vehicle area of the San Antonios and more deck cargo space but still having a well-deck big enough for LCACs it sure looks like they could leave some oil ashore and fulfil the transport role. They wouldn‘t be assault ships like the Brits new Albion, they would be more like transport ships the Brits are using as auxiliaries. The Dutch and the Spanish are using similar vessels. They seem to be being supplied with Mexeflottes and LCMs/LCUs. Semi-Tactical if you like. Apologies to those of you that don‘t like that word.

As to air I think the CASR site refers to 4 CH149/SeaKing types in the hangar, similar to the existing AORs.

The JSF was supposed to be available by 2010-2012 but it will probably slip. The Aussies are wingeing about the price going up, the Norwegians are thinking about buying the Swedish Grippen instead, the Americans are complaining that the vertical model weighs too much and can‘t carry the war load it is supposed to.

However, on the encouraging side, Lockheed says they can fix the weight, the US Marines still want it, the British RAF/RN MUST have them for their new expeditionary capability and even the USAF is seriously looking at the VSTOL version because of their experience trying to support troops in Afghanistan........ and that is a real "sea-change". The USAF has been wedded to runways for ever, the longer the better.

So Gen. Lew‘s vision is possible, the only thing missing as always ...........cash-money.

Which brings us to Pte. Nomercy. Believe it when you see it.

Cheers all.

 

[bossi]

Whats ironic is no retired or serving admiral (in fact no senior naval officers at all) have come onboard supporting Lewis‘ vision. That speaks volumes to me and any other sailor.

Yup - it speaks volumes ... (sadly)

Once upon a time imagination was encouraged, not stifled.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

FROM 05 MAY 2004 National Post:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/letters_story.html?id=6f2d9648-cac8-487f-b763-a191972f37cf

 

[quebecrunner]

Why not just reforming the canadian airborne regiment?

 

[gate_guard]

I still disagree with those that say this plan (or something like it is unfeasable). The main arguments against this plan seem to be:

1) manpower
2) money
3) naval leadership doesn‘t like it

So first off, manpower. This can be overcome, and the numbers needed aren‘t so extreme that it would be impossible to do so.

Money, if we‘re going to spend 2 billion on a few transport/supply ships, why not add a little to the pot and shell out for something a little bigger/better?

Naval leadership doesn‘t like it? Of course not! This would mean that they would have to work with other arms of the CF. What? Use them as just a transport for the army/air force? I didn‘t know that our doctrine/capability as a military was a popularity contest.

With regards to Mr Haydon‘s article, it‘s laced with backwards thinking, "The government should pay attention to maintaining those (naval) capabilities rather than wandering off on ill-considered flights of fancy." So keep the navy strong and ignore the situation of the army/air force? Should we just maintain the status quo without giving thought to a future capability of the CF? I‘m sorry but you can‘t peacekeep or fight wars with just a navy. "You better stop fighting buddy or we‘ll place a navy blockade on your ports..."

Exdragoon, what would you propose as an alternative concept to the future of the CF?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You want a wish list?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The Navy has never had a problem with Joint Ops in fact they are the ones usually pushing for it. I think what capabilities we have left we should enhance those and not worry about something we haven‘t been able to do since WW2.

I did not get that from the article at all, Mr Haydon I think was basicaly rolling his eyes when he wrote this. I think sometimes Mr MacKenzie has read to many of the forums where the kids have posted what we should get.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I just read a book from the U of C library about the history of the office of CDS and Canadian defence policy from 1961 to 1994. Very eye opening.

Canadian defence policy has always been predicated on the idea that we won‘t be in overall command of any force we send. The CDS himself is not supposed to be a force commander. We can see that this has been true throughout our history, the CEF was under British Army command in WW I (I mean literally, we as a corps were under British 2nd Army), in WW II, although we had an Army commander, we were subordinate to both SHAEF and 21st Army Group. In Korea our brigade group was under 1 Commonwealth Division. In Afghanistan our troops are under US command. etc.

Does General Mackenzie really feel Canada has experienced operational theatre commanders? Would that not be a prerequisite to fielding self-sufficient joint task forces?

We‘ve never done anything of the sort before, so I‘m not sure where the experience would come from.

Just another thing to think about. Would be great to do this given enough money, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and about 10 years of low intensity conflicts to get our feet wet in.

When the suggestion was made in 1991 that we field a brigade for the Iraq War, Ottawa didn‘t know whether to **** or go blind.

I think a more reasonable goal would be to build up the Army to a full division status, and rotate units to theatres as brigades, and leave the pie in the sky aircraft carrier stuff to our allies, who can afford to do it. Strategic airlift capability would be cheaper and easier to build up, and the Navy already has important functions of its own - sovereignty missions in home waters, and continue to do good work with US carrier battle groups. Luckily their interoperability allows them to do it. Since they‘re doing such good work, keep them at it.

A full division with a brigade of airborne qualified battalions could provide the clout that General Lew is talking about, couldn‘t it?

 

[Kirkhill]

Mike

In neither the first, nor the second wars did we have commanders, even battalion commanders, with field experience. The learned on the job. It took 3 years of the Calg Highrs teaching battle drill before we could field a formation (one subsequently slaughtered at Dieppe.

Only in Korea could we say we had sound field commanders with Rockingham.

You are right. It will take about ten years to build up the forces. It will also take about ten years to secure all the kit. Even US yards would be hard pressed to supply 3-4 San Antonios/Wasps in the timeframe on top of their existing commitments.

The sea-transportable brigade group with vertical lift I think is quite doable. An amphibious assault brigade is another matter entirely and I agree with all who suggest we won‘t be getting into the fast-jet fixed wing carrier business. I don‘t think even Gen MacKenzie is thinking that. He is probably thinking more on the order of a US MEU which MAY carry half a dozen harriers in place of some Sea Stallion heavy lift helicopters if the mission demands it.

As to Air Lift being cheaper. Cheaper than a carrier wing and an Amphibious Response Group yes, if we are talking about building a CVN Pierre Elliott Trudeau. But that is not what the good Gen is talking about. He is talking about a larger version of what the Dutch, Spanish and Italians are doing already. Neither in capital cost per tonne or cubic meter nor in operating costs would Airlift be cheaper to their solution of essentially 3 JSS and a Flat-Top Cruiser for vertical air support.

In decreasing order of likelihood:

Sea transportable light brigade with overseas garrison forces (battle group size) operating from a National division structure, ------entirely doable.

Air transportable battle group -------possible

Air transportable brigade ------- no hope

Amphibious Assault Brigade complete with National Air Cover ----- likewise

I have to agree with Gate-Guard and the Genl. It is within our reach.

As I understand him he wants to transport our light brigades to a foreign shore and insert troops in a relatively quiet insertion in support of the UN, (Haiti, Somalia, Sierra Leone), not assault the beach and recreate Normandy or Dieppe.....


Darn there I go again Must be all the Hamilton blood, I continually fight the tendency to Rant.

Have your pipey look that one up.


Cheers.

But it can be done.. Not this year but maybe in 10 years.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

1) Where are we going to get the crew?
2) Where are we going to get the training?
3) What aircraft and vehicles are we going to get for this "mini carrier" of Mr MacKenzies?
4) By the time its built are we still going to have a viable escort and replenishment force for this "mini-carrier"?
5) Will it be built in Canada or a foreign ship yard?
6) What coast will it be on?
7) How many sea days are we going to give it annually and what contigency plans will be drawn up for it in the event we need to deploy troops during its down time?
8) Will the army and air force be willing to give up a substantial portion of their budgets so this vessel could be built and operated?

Those are the questions you should be asking kirkhill and gate gard. Its a nice to have but unless the naval budget is increased significantly do you still actually think this is doable? Do you guys have any idea how much consumables an LHD would consume in a year and with a crew of over 1100 one of these would tie up a crew of 5 CPFs. Sorry guys the JSS is a good buy but a Wasp is not!

 

[gate_guard]

Look, we can get tied up in the details, but the fact remains that nothing worth doing is ever easy. I‘m merely pointing out that the capability of a sea-transportable brigade group could be a direction for the future of the CF. The old adage "Rome wasn‘t built in a day" applies here. I see our current capability as near non-existent. Our military is overstretched and underfunded in all aspects, that‘s a given. You propose that we focus on our current capabilities, but what capabilities do we really have? If we are to take stances such as the one we took against joining the allies in Iraq, we at least have to be taken seriously. I highly doubt that the allies missed our participation in that one. In my view, we‘ll never be taken seriously with the current state of the CF. I think many would agree that something, some reorganization and focus has to be given in order for the CF to be viable in the future. We can‘t keep playing the U.S.‘s poor, underfunded little brother pretending to be a player in the big leagues. Regarding Mr Dorosh‘s comments, you don‘t get field experience by sitting on the sidelines. All the great field commanders from Guderian to Zhukov busted their cherries at some point. Your point that we don‘t have field commander experience and our doctrine won‘t support a capability is lacking. Commander‘s gain experience, doctrine changes. I‘m not saying this plan would magically happen over night. Initial steps such as funding issues and manpower increases would have to be taken. After which doctrine and SOP‘s for such a plan would take years to implement.

But so far all I‘ve heard the naysayers rehash is that we don‘t have the money, the manpower, and the will. Exdragoon, would you agree that if manpower, funding, and all the sidebits could be worked out, would this capability be a good direction for the CF to take? If the answer is yes, then this plan should to be considered. If your answer is no, we‘ll never agree and we‘ll leave it at that. I know I‘m being completely idealistic and naive in this. I know we currently don‘t have the funding nor the manpower or logistics for such a capability. But if the CF keeps ignoring possible future directions such as the one mentioned here, 50 years from now we‘ll still be upgrading CF-18s, throwing a coy of infantry here and a battalion there on peacekeeping duty, and having our naval ships augment Allied naval groups. If your happy with the way things are, I‘ve already lost this debate.

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheers Gate-Guard

The only thing I would note is your comment about being idealistic and naive.

Its good to be idealistic, especially when your future is ahead of you.

A da-n-sight more rewarding than been old and cynical and getting your jollies from trashing the youngsters while waiting for retirement.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Gate Guard I would love for the manpower, funding and sidebit issues to be worked out so we could start getting all the big boy toys but I think we need to concentrate on updating the CPFs (they will need major updating to remain effective as they are), actually committing ourselves to replace the 280s (Without an air defence capability having a nice big target like an LHD is only asking for trouble), field the MHP(need I say more on this), recruit more sailors (otherwise your Wasp will be sitting in a harbour someplace with just a duty watch on board) and start construction on the JSS (our current AORs need replacing bad and without a replenishment capability we become a coastal navy). Then and only then can be realistically think of starting on anything as ambitious as an LHD. If the goverment did all those things I would be happy to come on board.
Kirkhill, I think I have earned the right to be old (well not too old) and cynical after 15 years Reg Force time and 2.5 Reserve time. Playing "lets pretend" or "what if" hold no allure for me and most other CF personnel.

 

[gate_guard]

In the words of the old guy in the Kokanee commercials, "Dare to dream, Exdragoon, dare to dream." (West Coasters‘ll probably be the only ones who get that one)

 

[gate_guard]

But seriously though, that‘s all I‘m asking. We can‘t let our world reknown ability to "do more with less" stand in the way of actually developing a new and better capability as the CF. Sure, there a million things that need addressing right now, and should be addressed. I‘m talking a long term plan though, if all we are focused on is the next expiration date of one of our pieces of equipment, we will be playing the eternal game of catch up. The reality of a nation‘s military is that nothing new is ever implemented until it‘s found that it‘s needed (ie wait for the next big war, then we‘ll figure out what we need). Why not some pre-emptive planning? If we can all agree that something like a seaborne brigade group would be a viable option in the distant future, why not aim for it now? Short term goals and long term goals.

And for the record, I do share your cynicism, and if something like this were ever to be accomplished, it would be a feat of Herculean proportions. Nonetheless, why not? We can‘t let past screw ups of the CF limit our ability to dream for something better (there goes my idealism again). Otherwise we‘ve bought into their (read NDHQ) ideology of never expecting anything better.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gate_guard:
[qb] In the words of the old guy in the Kokanee commercials, "Dare to dream, Exdragoon, dare to dream." (West Coasters‘ll probably be the only ones who get that one) [/qb]

Dinnnnnnnnnnnng Donnnnnnnnnnnng

(It‘s not just the Left Coast that gets those commercials. )

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I see what you are saying Gate Guard and I agree but I think we should priortize what we need first. We could learn valuable lessons from embarking troops and vehicles on the JSS..and then move upwards. These days we have to learn how to crawl before we can even hope in ever running that marathon.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ex-Dragoon

You are correct, we do need to fix the issues of spare parts, training ammunition and bodies to fill out the existing units.

And I apologize to you and all the others out there that have BTDT. You have reasons enough to be cynical.

But unless we give youngsters the chance to dream you aren‘t going to be getting the company you seek on those long, lonely mid-watches.

Here‘s a related article from Janes. More grist for the mill.

US considers overhaul of amphibious forces

By Andrew Koch JDW Bureau Chief, Washington, DC

The US Marine Corps (USMC) and navy are considering a radical restructuring that will change the way units ashore are organised to fight and alter plans for at least two new ship class designs to support those forces.

To pay for these dramatic moves, they could axe up to four of the existing 12 amphibious ready groups (ARGs) and buy fewer San Antonio-class LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ships than planned, a US defence source and senior navy official said.

Noting that "we had better have a military that is mobile and agile", the senior navy official said that the US will face political constraints on the use of its armed force in the future, as was witnessed during the build-up to Operation ‘Iraqi Freedom‘. Therefore, the official said, being able to operate from seabases rather than aggregating forces ashore is going to become increasingly vital. "The issue of sovereignty is going to be more important in the next 30 years than it ever has in the past ... What we saw in Turkey is just the beginning."

To solve the problem, the navy is looking to build a group of ships to base forces to be projected ashore. The new ships will include a modified Wasp-class multipurpose amphibious assault ship (LHD-8) baseline design that is optimised for aviation under what is known as the LHA-R programme.

Those ships would work in conjunction with Maritime Preposition Force-Future (MPF-F) vessels equipped with full flight decks to provide much of the logistical needs and space required for the marines. Other future ships such as DD(X) destroyers, which are expected to eventually be armed with electromagnetic railguns capable of firing a precision projectile more than 200nm inland, would provide naval gun fire support.

289 of 1,116 word

From Janes Defence Weekly

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh and by the way Ex-Dragoon, and your mates.......

Thank-you