Senate Committe hears proposal for Joint Task Force

[bossi]

General seeks ‘Canadian Joint Task Force‘ with aircraft carrier

[QUOTE ] One of Canada‘s best-known generals says it is time we got back into the aircraft carrier business, calling on Ottawa to acquire a "mini-carrier" that can carry Canadian troops to almost any trouble spot on the globe and put them ashore with naval and air support.

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie told a Senate committee yesterday that only a carrier will provide Canada with the diplomatic and military clout it had when the navy sent HMCS Magnificent, with hundreds of army vehicles on board, to help resolve the Suez Crisis in the 1950s.

Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie told the Senate committee on national defence the Canadian Forces should establish three "rapid reaction forces" built around large amphibious assault ships or mini-aircraft carriers in what he called "a Canadian Joint Task Force."

"We should have a commando force, an elite joint force that is uniquely Canadian -- red and white all over," he said. "That could plug into a joint coalition with air, sea and land capabilities."

Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie proposed that Ottawa should buy or lease a U.S.-built San Antonio-class mini-carrier or even a much larger Wasp-class carrier to become the core of his expeditionary force.

"That would be the pointy end of the spear, to give the military some relevance and the government some more options ... to gain some international influence -- geopolitical brownie points, if you will."

While generals and military experts have called for a "respite" of two years or more to allow our overstretched military to rebuild, Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said it is unrealistic to expect the government to keep the army, navy and air force at home for so long.

A Canadian task force built around a U.S.-built troop and aircraft carrier would win points in Washington, he said. "That would be a big geopolitical victory for the Americans to link us into that."

Canada‘s last aircraft carrier, HMCS Bonaventure, was sold for scrap in 1970, and with it went our ability to have a significant impact on international crises, said Dr. Richard Gimblett, a professor at Dalhousie University and a former naval officer.

"If the government is serious about increasing Canada‘s influence in the world and having the capability to be a major player on the world stage, then you need something like this," he said. "This sort of ship would be very handy."

"We‘ve been ‘penny packeting‘ our troops overseas -- sending a company here or a hundred troops there, just to show the Canadian flag in places like Haiti. To really have an influence, you need a battlegroup [about 1,000 soldiers]."

A Canadian aircraft carrier, either a light carrier like the U.S. Navy‘s Wasp class or an "amphibious assault" ship like the San Antonio class, would fit seamlessly into U.S. or British coalition operations.

"We show up at all the same places they do.... Now we‘ll be arriving fully equipped and ready to operate," Dr. Gimblett said.

While the bill for either class of ship proposed by Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie is high -- more than $1.5-billion for a Wasp-class carrier and up to $800-million for the San Antonio-class -- the ships would be expected to last up to 50 years, with periodic refits to modernize them.

"It‘s a whack of money," Dr. Gimblett said, "but it gives the government a capability to really influence a situation in a hot spot, rather than just show the flag."

And Dr. Gimblett said the carriers would save the Canadian Forces millions in the long term by saving the cost of transporting troops and equipment by civilian ships or aircraft.

The cash-strapped military would, however, need time to build up its numbers and expertise to fully man a Canadian carrier task force. "You don‘t snap your fingers and suddenly you have it," Dr. Gimblett said. "The Canadian Forces would have to train and equip themselves up to this.... Realistically, it will take a decade."

The Department of National Defence has announced a $2.1-billion plan to build three new joint support ships for the navy, which would have some transport and troop-carrying capacity.

But Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said the new ships can only carry a relatively small number of troops and will be another 11 years in the making. "They‘re a good idea and they‘re certainly needed," he said. "But we‘ve got to be able to do something in less than 11 years."

The carriers he is proposing the navy acquire could accommodate 800 to 2,000 soldiers.
[/QUOTE]
- 30 -

Chris Wattie - National Post, 04 May 2004

 

[stukirkpatrick]

Interesting idea, but have we ever bought an American ship before? Its not like we don‘t already use/share their designs *cough*C7&LAV*cough*.

 

[kurokaze]

Umm.. are they still making these Wasp Class carriers? the only references I found to them were from 1942!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

He is referring to the Wasp Class LHD...

 

[kurokaze]

oh, thanks.

Not a bad idea, but where are we going to find the sailors?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Exactly.....

 

[gate_guard]

The cash-strapped military would, however, need time to build up its numbers and expertise to fully man a Canadian carrier task force. "You don‘t snap your fingers and suddenly you have it," Dr. Gimblett said. "The Canadian Forces would have to train and equip themselves up to this.... Realistically, it will take a decade."

Am I the only one who read this part? Of course we‘ll need more sailors, troops, etc. That isn‘t the point. The point is that this is a feasable plan for the future of the CF. A plan that doesn‘t involve magically obtaining a trillion dollars in defence spending so we can "compete" with the U.S.

 

[scm77]

"We should have a commando force, an elite joint force that is uniquely Canadian -- red and white all over," he said. "That could plug into a joint coalition with air, sea and land capabilities."

Can anybody explain this better? Are we talking Canadian Marine Commandos? Because if we are I will wet my pants.

Here‘s a link to info for the LHD-1 Wasp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhd-1.htm

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I read it as well gate_guard but carriers have been discussed before so I so no reason to bring it up again.
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.

 

[quebecrunner]

I‘d like to have that kind of ships around... But it seems obvious to me that we need more ground troops before... that will allow the guys to take breaks.

 

[ArmyBrat]

Sorry if I‘m overlapping ideas, but isn‘t that what the JSS project is all about?

It was my understanding that the JSS project was to set up 2 readily available task groups, which would carry rapid reaction tasked troops, and their equipment, anywhere in the world - and would have the option of helo support.

Seems to me, even if it will be a few years, the JSS project would do us just fine. The question of sailors is going to be an issue nonetheless, but much less of an issue with the JSS project than if we were to aquire a WASP-LHD.

On a similar issue, does anybody know what the plans are to equip the JSS project with helicopters, or will they just assign some of the new maritime helicopters to the ships when needed?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think if you check the specs on the new Joint Support Ship it looks astonishingly similar the spec for the San Antonio LPD-17

A couple of quotes from the DND Backgrounder:

The notional dimensions of the ship will be in the order of 200 metres in length, 26 metres in breadth and a displacement of 28,000 metric tonnes.

1,500 lane metres of covered deck space for vehicles and capacity equivalent to 1,000 lane metres for weather deck stowage of sea containers. This area is roughly equivalent to that required to carry 300 wheeled light support trucks. This will serve to reduce the reliance on chartered sealift when speed or reaction is a key element of a mission.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1346

Vice the specification for the LPD-17 from Global Security.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17-specs.htm

25-28,000 tonne displacement, 208 m length overall, 31.9 m beam at the water line.

Kind of look like the same ship to me.

Three of these ships will transport the gear for two light inf battle groups and an small Light Armoured Regiment with service support and about 600 troops amongst them.

The San Antonios carry about 700 troops plus a lot of other gear.

It seems to me that if they built the three hulls they are talking about configured as planned, they could then build a fourth identical hull with the decks and bulkheads reconfigured internally and Gen. MacKenzie would be a long way towards achieving his goal.

For comparison, here are the specs for the LHD-1 Wasp. A 40,000 tonne carrier dedicated to troops (up to 1900) and vertical air.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhd-1-specs.htm

The dream might not be totally impossible.

Cheers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ummmm you do realize the main role for these the JSS is still fleet replenishment the sealift tasking is still secondary. With the Wasp and San Antonio classes, these ships are purpose built amphibious warfare platforms, the JSS isn‘t.

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

I took a look at the specs for the "Wasp" class ships. It seems to me (but I‘m ignorant of such things) as though it would not accomodate any fixed wing AC that we currently have. So unless it was going to be a helicopter carrier only, which I don‘t think was really Lou‘s intent in suggesting it, we‘d need to buy a bunch of new aircraft to go with it, no? I don‘t see that happening.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

There will be a V/STOL version of the JSF if we get them.

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

Do you have any idea of what the timeframe for possible purchase of such AC would be?

 

[Pte.Nomercy]

I‘ll believe it when I see it to be honest!

We used to have a quick reaction force, at a time the best in the world, but then they disbanded the Canadian Airborne Regiment! Really smart!

Now apparently need more of a quick reaction force then JTF and there isn‘t one around, it will cost allot to recreate such a combat force as the CAR, not to mention to invest into this whole amphibious assault thing too!

I don‘t mean to sound negative or nothing, but it doesn‘t seem feasible, all of a sudden the government WANTS TO SPEND MONEY on the military?
That should have been done long long ago after Trudeau‘s unification and "restructure"
(more like demolition) of the military.

 

[sgt_mandal]

Originally posted by sgt_mandal:
[qb] If you don‘t understand my rationalle, I will understand:

Do these new vessles seem like a giant diamond ring on a homless mans hand? [/qb]

WOW! This is a positive step within the CF. The homeless man is finally shopping for some new clothes and a shower to go with them! With the other 3 ships in the process, he might not even be a hobo in a decade or 2, (if he isn‘t dead by then)

 

[sgt_mandal]

I‘m not trying to sound sarcastic, I just think this is a step in the right direction.
The quote attatched to my last post was from a different thread but pertaining to somewhat the same topic; New ships for Canada‘s Navy.

 

[casing]

Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
[qb] There will be a V/STOL version of the JSF if we get them. [/qb]

Aren‘t the Hornets supposed to be undergoing modernization that will give them another 15 to 20 years of service? If that is actually the case, then I don‘t see an acquisition of JSF anytime soon.