• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)

I've been watching this thread with much interest.  Their seems to be, unless I am very mistaken, an opinion that Marines must be the US view of Marines.  This is in no way knocking the USMC who are very, very good at what they do.

But what about the Royal Marines model which has been adopted successfully by the Netherlands and Denmark just to name two?

 
Regarding "Expeditionary Ships", todays Ottawa Citizen:


Canada needs warship to fulfil top general's dream
Hillier hopes to create 'Task Force Maple Leaf' for humanitarian missions or all-out wars
 
Chris Wattie
National Post


February 14, 2005


TORONTO - Canada's top general says he needs a big amphibious expeditionary warship to realize his plans for a Canadian task force to take our navy, army and air force anywhere in the world for everything from humanitarian missions to all-out wars.

Gen. Rick Hillier outlined his ambitious plan for the Canadian Forces in an interview with the National Post yesterday, a plan that will require a top-to-bottom reorganization of all three services and an infusion of new soldiers and equipment.

"We're talking about taking army task forces, navy task groups and air capability ... and have it ready to deploy either in Canada, or around the world, as an entity that says 'Canadian' on it -- a Task Force Maple Leaf, if you will," Gen. Hillier said, adding with a smile: "I like that name."

Gen. Hillier, who was sworn in as chief of defence staff less than two weeks ago, said he'll need a big, new vessel to carry up to 1,500 troops, heavy equipment and new air force heavy-lift helicopters to international hotspots, and he will need it soon.

"What we're going to clearly need is the ability to project our men and women and the capabilities that they bring with them around the world," said Gen. Hillier. "We'll have to find something different that allows us to do that. We're still looking, the whole options are out there."

The general said his staff is considering expanding the navy's Joint Support Ship program to fill that role, but is also looking at larger and more expensive vessels to become the flagships of a future Canadian expeditionary force.

"What we need is something that is going to allow us to project power across the shore, from here to our next theatre of operations, whether that's in the north part of Canada, or on the coast of Canada, or around the world," he said.

"Whether our Joint Support Ships can be shaped to give us that capability is the first question we will ask."

The Joint Support Ship program, a $2.1-billion plan to build three or more vessels by 2011, will combine the roles of a tanker for refuelling other warships at sea, a transport for ground troops and their equipment and an offshore command post, or hospital.

But each of the vessels, which are still on the drawing boards, will be able to carry only 200 soldiers and a limited amount of equipment. Their flight decks would be able to accommodate only four medium-sized helicopters.

So Gen. Hillier said Canada may have to acquire a ship like the Royal Navy's HMS Albion, an 18,500-tonne, 176-metre-long amphibious assault ship that can carry up to 700 Royal Marines, their equipment and armoured vehicles.

Gen. Hillier wouldn't say how much money his over-burdened troops will need from this month's federal budget to begin making his planned expeditionary force a reality, but in his first speech as head of the Canadian Forces last week he was pointedly critical of military underfunding.

He acknowledged his plans are "a little bit pre-emptive" of the government's defence policy review, expected to be unveiled this spring to outline the future direction of the military.

But he doesn't want to wait before acting and intends to start putting his proposed task force together almost immediately.

"We'll build one task force as soon as we possibly can," he said. "I want to get there sooner rather than later, I'll tell you that."

Gen. Hillier admitted the Canadian Forces' top generals have "a lot of work to do" before his expeditionary force becomes a reality and said the details of his plan have yet to be fleshed out. "I have a vision of where we need to go here, but to be able to describe it in specific detail, I'm not quite ready to do that yet," he said.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005


 
Hey Kirkhill I guess we know what variant of the JSS they are looking at with only 200 troops embarked lol.
 
big bad john said:
Gen. Hillier, who was sworn in as chief of defence staff less than two weeks ago, said he'll need a big, new vessel to carry up to 1,500 troops, heavy equipment and new air force heavy-lift helicopters to international hotspots, and he will need it soon.

Hmmm... I believe that's what Stephen Harper said the military needed and he would acquire (if elected PM) during the last election campaign.  The dreaded "aircraft carriers" that Paul Martin criticized Harper so much for, saying there was no need for such an expensive thing. 

I wonder if he feels differently now that it's Gen. Hillier saying it.
 
[quotHmmm... I believe that's what Stephen Harper said the military needed and he would acquire (if elected PM) during the last election campaign.  The dreaded "aircraft carriers" that Paul Martin criticized Harper so much for, saying there was no need for such an expensive thing. 

I wonder if he feels differently now that it's Gen. Hillier saying it.e]
I don't recall Gen Hillier anywhere's saying aircraft carrier...I seen he wants something like HMS Albion, thats an amphib not a carrier. there is a big difference.
 
I know Albion can support heavy helo's, but can it embark them, maintain etc. ? Doesn't the Albion/Bulwark class usually sail with a CV or LPH for the Helo's to have access to maintenance etc? We might end up with a much larger vessel than Albion if we wish to accomplish all those roles in one ship. 

Cheers. 
 
I know the difference between amphib and aircraft carrier. 

During the election Harper said he would purchase the amphibious type ships.  But Martin and his campaign said Harper would cut social programs and pour money into the military to by "aircraft carries" as he called them.  Canadians (average canaidans) don't want big ships that carry jets to bomb people.  Trying to exagerrate it and scare the public into thinking Harper would buy stuff that he wouldn't.

Hope that's clearer now :)
 
Big Bad John,

What are the major differences (besides size/scale) between the Royal Marine and USMC model?  Are there doctrinal differences?

In my own mind I envision Light Forces deploying strategically by sea but delivered tactically by helicopter (over the horizon?) and then supported from the sea.  We can adapt our emerging "Light Forces" to fit this role without having to create new regiments.  What would be a good "battalion-sized Task Force"?

Airforce/Navy SMEs,

What kind of helicopters do you think are being envisioned here?  Could we get a "common" helicopter with CH-47 like capabilities that could deploy on ships but also operate from land bases (ie. in the middle of Afghanistan)?  I'd trade our current helicopter fleet to achieve that (don't worry, I'm not in the position to do so!).

Cheers,

2B
 
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/

Everything you wanted to know about the RN and the Royal Marines (or at least a good starting point)

And yes 2B the Abion is primarily a Command and Troop Transport Vessel, the Ocean brings along the Helo support and a couple of Bay Class LSD(A) bring along the heavy gear.  Four vessels, about 70,000 tonnes total for the four (4x 16-18 tonnes) and up to something like 2800 troops when jammed to the gun'ls.  More like 1400 if used for an extended sea deployment.

However the Bay's are virtually the same ship as the Rotterdam/Enforcer type used by Holland and Spain

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/products.html#
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/galicia/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/

These vessels are designed to carry a disembarking force of ~600 troops,  33 MBTs or 130 APCs, 4-6 Landing Craft, 6 NH-90 type Helos or 4 EH-101s (Cormorants) in a Hangar with 2 flight spots on deck, plus a Joint Command center and a Hospital.

They Dutch Vessels and the Marines Plug in to the RN/Royal Marine Task Force or can operate independently deploying Dutch Marines to the Caribbean amongt other places.

3 JSS and an Enforcer?  JSS for AOR and a domestic amphibious role with Combat Teams and Command/Hospital and the Enforcer for Overseas Deployments with just Troop/Equipment/Helo support and no Command or Hospital function?  Could the Navy leave a JSS in theatre along with the LSD?  Together they would transport a disembarkation force of 800-900 and leave on board another 1-200 Command and Support staff.
 
2Bravo said:
Big Bad John,

What are the major differences (besides size/scale) between the Royal Marine and USMC model?  Are there doctrinal differences?

In my own mind I envision Light Forces deploying strategically by sea but delivered tactically by helicopter (over the horizon?) and then supported from the sea.  We can adapt our emerging "Light Forces" to fit this role without having to create new regiments.  What would be a good "battalion-sized Task Force"?

Cheers,

2B

The Royal Marines Corps(Yes it is always Marines) is much like you envision and vastly different fromthe USMC model.  First off, we are not an "All Arms" force.  We do have our own Pilots and Helo's in a limited amount (4 Helo Sqdns), but our Artillery and Engineers are assigned as units from the Army.  We are all Commandos.  Our "Basic" training is 32 weeks.  But it takes a full 54 weeks before you are considered fully trained.  All attached units and personnel must complete the "All Arms Commando Course" which is 12 weeks at present. 

The main maneuver formation is 3 Commando Brigade.  Try these 2 sites:  http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/141.html
http://www.royalmarinesregimental.co.uk/index.shtml

They are a good primer.

Cheers
 
This paper by Commander Jollymore outlines the serious conundrum posed by proceeding with the JSS: primarily, the issue is numbers. A couple of ships like the Rotterdam  would probably be great additions to the JSS fleet, which are not going to be produced in suffcient numbers to be useful to the type of force Hillier seems to want. After reading his paper, I would think having dedicated amphib ships separated from the JSS would be a damn good idea. And, after all of that, where do all the sailors come from?  The CPF's? Reserves? Civvies?

Paper: http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/papers/amsc7/jollymore.htm



 
The Dutch vessels have a crew of 124, the Spanish 115 expandable to 127 or 179.
The unarmed Brit versions require a crew of 60.  The vessel is fitted for self-defense systems (Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Chaff etc)

The Dutch and Spanish are Regs, the Brits are Royal Fleet Auxilliary or full-time civvies.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/galicia/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/

The Dutch and Spanish also operate an AOR with 148 crew plus a Hangar and Deck with 3 SeaKings and an Air Det of 19.  Vessel has a medical centre.  Room on board for an additional 20 bodies.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/

Three Patinos and 2 Rotterdams could be manned with a minimum crew of 3x148 = 444 + 2x60 = 120 for a total of 564 or a maximum of about 700.  Perhaps the LSDs could be manned by a mix of Regs and Reservists - One crew Regs, 2-3 crews of Reservists - perhaps Weapons Teams drawn from the Reserves?  Perhaps Civvy crews like the Brits but again with Reservists handling weapons duties?
 
FWIW, unless the 280 is going to be replaced, an amphib should be armed at least with 2 x CIWS and a supplied with a shit load of extra life rafts.  Lets have someone cut and paste the past few posts into the JSS thread, where I'm sure we've had this discussion before!!! 
 
whiskey 601 said:
FWIW, unless the 280 is going to be replaced, an amphib should be armed at least with 2 x CIWS and a supplied with a crap load of extra life rafts.    Lets have someone cut and paste the past few posts into the JSS thread, where I'm sure we've had this discussion before!!!    

Agreed...cause the amphib won't be worth squat without AAD.
 
I was really worried about the fate of the Navy when Gen Hillier was named CDS but it seems that he is now singing from the joint handbook.

As for the JSS,
The Navy needs AORs to replace the PROTECTEUR class (their engineering plants should be in a museum somewhere)
The Navy thought that the only way to get them was to marry up with the army for sea-lift purposes (post JTS KATIE)
Budget constraints limited the purchase to 3 (don't believe the stuff about an option for 4, 3 will be all we get)
Serious questions are being raised about the feasibility of such a hybrid, who would own them, would they be enough
Hilliers musings about a more dedicated Amphib will allow the Navy (I would hope) to procure 4 traditional AORs (with modern engineering, material handling, Command and Control) that would be under Navy control.
They Amphib could be anything from a Rotterdam or San Antonio type to a Ocean, Iwo Jima type amphib carrier that would be under DCDS control

As long an we purchased the Amphib from offshore, I think this could be concept that we could make work
 
Now FSTO...if we can sell Gen Hillier on replacing the 280s then I think the Navy will breathe a little easier.
 
The less you try to jam into the Troop Transport and the Oilers, the more money there is likely to be for the AAD, n'est ce pas?

In other words if you only spend 320 Milliion on 2 Transports with one regular crew of 60 to 120 and supplementary reserve crews, and you buy the "traditional" AORs, how much change would that leave you from the 2.1 Bn JSS project to go to the AAD project?

And by the way, I can imagine the folks on board the transports, possibly including senior army types, would be happy to see some air defence capability in the area.   With or without point defence.

You might want to spend another couple of 100 million more on helo support, Joint HQ and hospital capabilities for 1 or both vessels.
 
God, this just might work.

Budget allowing of course.

Now along with what everyone is asking I think. What about the replacements for the 280's? We'll still need more air defense as well as C&C capability when working with other nations task forces if we do go this route.

And I know it will entail a groan. But the fact that we may one day see MBT's again because of their capabilities (wish, wish, wish) and they would fit into this new version of our forces.

Man this is exciting.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Now FSTO...if we can sell Gen Hillier on replacing the 280s then I think the Navy will breathe a little easier.

Hey Ex,

In your mind is it viable to bypass CADRE and move directly to the Single Ship Transition Project to replace the
280's in their current role?

Additionally, how far forward do budgetting allocations take place for naval procurement?   Specifically, if the CDS
allocated $700 - $900 million per year starting in 2010, could production facilities be in place and ready to go for
that new design in a fixed 5 year window?

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.    :salute:
 
Back
Top