A Dream Navy?

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Submarine : Yes they may be a little small for the Pacific, but Diesel Electric does not have the capacity to go under the ice for a decent amount of time. The type 212 also known as the Todara class to the Italians, can sustain 3 weeks of operations before requiring to surface. Also carries mines, torpedoes and what is known as an IDAS that can be fired out of the torpedo tubes and take out anti-submarine helicopters.

The Soryu class is also an AIP boat.

 

[Klinkaroo]

The Soryu class is also an AIP boat.

You are right, my apologies for completely missing this.

I will still stand by my submarine selection as it does have the IDAS (however I am sure we could also get a system working on the Soryu though), mine laying capability, and with more vessels for the same amount of crew we can spread out, cover larger area (the arctic is big). A is said before in this post, however there is talk that this might be in the process of change, the Japanese do not export their military equipment and something in my gut just says that the German's are good at subs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

When we, here, discuss things like equipment needs or force structure it ought to be based upon some sort of strategic assessment which says: here are the two or three big problems that we will face over the next quarter or half century and here is what we need to respond to them. Policy proposals cannot come “out of the blue.”

Several, many, indeed most of us will arrive at different conclusions because we have different strategic points of view. I, for example, do not see Asia (China or India) as “threats;” competition, yes, threats, no. I see the Islamic Crescent (Morocco through the Middle East and West Asia to Indonesia) as being the “problem” for the next generation, at least. I believe it will ‘explode’ in a rapidly increasing series of crises that will spread throughout Northern Africa and into Black Africa, too. I believe South America – including Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico - will, once again, fail to live up to its potential; it will, in fact, make worse than normal social, economic and political decisions and will, yet again, be a problem area.

My foreign and defence policy focus, therefore, is on creating and maintaining robust, (relatively) light military forces that can deploy quickly and effectively on a global basis and conduct, unilaterally, low intensity and, with allies, mid and even high intensity operations for sustained periods – decades. To get and keep that capability I believe, for reasons I have stated before, that we must ‘grow’ the defence budget to 2%+ of GDP, and keep it there. Thus, I believe, that the Conservative’s Canada First Defence Strategy is wholly inadequate and is a recipe for unilateral disarmament and the "Open Canada" strategy is nothing of the sort.

Based on that, I want naval* forces for:

1. The Defence of Canada – which includes sovereignty assertion and defence, anti-smuggling operations and search and rescue;

2. Contributing to international peace and security – which, early in the 21st century includes anti-piracy operations wherever required; and

3. Promotion and protection of Canada’s vital interests – which includes projecting Canadian power and deploying and sustaining Canadian military forces overseas.

I want, within the RCMP, Coast Guard, CBSA and in the CF, a ‘fleet’ of coastal patrol vessels – fast enough to catch most (many?) smugglers and illegal fishing vessels, ‘seaworthy’ enough to patrol within our 200 nautical mile limits 365 days and nights per year and so on.

I want a ‘blue water’ fleet able to deploy two multi-ship formations (say, just for the sake of argument, one destroyer or command ship, two frigates and one support ship) at one time, each for an extended period – say 180 days.

I want an additional ‘expeditionary’ fleet consisting of:

• Amphibious shipping consisting of assault shipping (LPHs? LPDs?) able to lift two land/air battle groups – each of 1,500± soldiers with vehicles and helicopters;
• Protective destroyers and/or frigates; and
• Command and support ships.

I guess my “Dream Navy” looks something like this:

• Coastal patrol corvettes – qty (?) 
• Mine counter measure vessels – qty (?)
• Submarines – qty (?)
• Command ships – qty 4
• Destroyers – qty 6
• Frigates – qty 12
• Amphibious ships – qty (?)
• Support ships/AORs – qty 4

Some of the coastal patrol and mine counter measure vessels can be double hatted as training vessels.

Can we have a combination destroyer/command ship? Maybe we would, then, need only 8 rather than 10?

My 22 command ships, destroyers and frigates allow for several to be in repair and refit at any time.

My  :2c: . Could someone with some useful knowledge in this area please translate my “wish list” into classes of ships, numbers of ships and numbers of people, etc?


----------
* Some of these armed maritime forces may, indeed should come from other government departments and agencies like the RCMP and, perhaps, Canadian Border Security Agency.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

"Leadmark" mentioned (I don't know how many times) the need for general purpose naval forces.

Below is the relevant part from Leadmark: The Navy's Strategy for 2020

The Naval Strategy for 2020: The Canadian navy will continue its development as a highly adaptable and flexible force, ready to provide the government with a wide range of relevant policy options across a continuum of domestic and international contingencies up to mid-level military operations.

The navy will generate combat capable forces that are responsive, rapidly deployable, sustainable, versatile, lethal and survivable.  Canada’s naval forces, from individual units to complete Task Groups, will be tactically self-sufficient and be able to join or integrate into a joint, US or multinational force, anywhere in the world.  The navy will enhance the capability to deploy Vanguard elements for crisis response and to support the rapid deployment of the Land and Air Main Contingency Forces.

 

[Old Naval Guard]

Well since this is a Dream  :nod:Lets have at her!  ;D I would like to see a Navy like the one we has in the 1950s-1960s in the sense, that we had an Aircraft Carrier  caple of  Air Defence,strike, ASW, 1 Amphious Carrier to transport troops to various situations as they arise. A cruiser (2) type ship for Command and Air Defence, sort of what the Tribals do now. This would revive an Old RCN dream of a Balanced Fleet. 22 Destroyers, Frigates and a modern version of  the corvette. Supply ships 2. Submaries 8-12. Ice breakers 4 while there would be 6-12 Minesweepers or Patrol boats. Also a naval Air arm and a new Canadain navy  Cheers Old Naval Guard 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well since this is a Dream  :nod:Lets have at her!  ;D I would like to see a Navy like the one we has in the 1950s-1960s in the sense, that we had an Aircraft Carrier  caple of  Air Defence,strike, ASW, 1 Amphious Carrier to transport troops to various situations as they arise. A cruiser (2) type ship for Command and Air Defence, sort of what the Tribals do now. This would revive an Old RCN dream of a Balanced Fleet. 22 Destroyers, Frigates and a modern version of  the corvette. Supply ships 2. Submaries 8-12. Ice breakers 4 while there would be 6-12 Minesweepers or Patrol boats. Also a naval Air arm and a new Canadain navy  Cheers Old Naval Guard

There was a caveat in the first post of 4402+/- 100 personnel in OGBs opening post and the use of modern warships.

Edward I don't think anyone would feel right telling you what warships to use, after all this is OGBs vision using 4400 personnel.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Hey guys speaking of the "ideal navy" and crew sizes. I have heard rumblings that our future surface combatants will have a much scaled down Log Dept. Possibly no Storesys, less cooks, no clerks and less stewards. Can anyone confirm if they have heard the same rumblings ?

If this did come to fruition would you expect that a set up like MOG5 for the subs and MCDVs would be put into place for the heavy surface combatants ?

 

[Klinkaroo]

Didn't hear any rumbling at all but I would support a move like this.

I mean no offense to the people that work on the ship, but in the modern age of computers and semi-reliable telephone communications, is there really a requirement to bring the support staff to sea? What is done on ship that couldn't be done from shore. If the engineers need a part for example, they can just phone up the storsey on shore and get the part shipped out. Yes this would all require more training for the people on the ship on keeping an inventory and tracking their stuff, and procedures to place orders, a whole SOP would have to be developed, but in my opinion the ships carry way too many people for the job they do. Many other navies carry far less people for the same size and type of vessel. Also, surely centralizing alot of the logistics would help reduce manning requirements, saving money... And as we all know people are the most expensive part of any navy. Less clerks, less storeseys ect on board means less salary expenditures, less public rations, less sea pay to pay out.

 

[Neill McKay]

What is done on ship that couldn't be done from shore. If the engineers need a part for example, they can just phone up the storsey on shore and get the part shipped out.

One of the strengths of a navy is its ability to operate a great distance from home.  If you're alongside in Halifax then it might be workable to ring up FMF Cape Scott when your widget breaks and get them to bring you a new one, but it's a whole other matter when you're on the other side of the world -- more so if your broken widget is a critical piece of some important system.

A warship is largely self-contained and independent of its surroundings.  Taking too big a bite out of the supply department would take away some of that self-sufficiency and make it a less effective platform.

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't cheat on your numbers Ex-D. Svalbard: 4 x 284 is 1156, not 992.

This said, I think that 284 is the maximum number of embarked people on the Svalbard, including the troop transport berths. The crew is closer to 65-70 range as a rule if I remember well. This is definitely one of those situations where Wiki fails us.

With respect to all concerned but I believe the actual embarked strength in the Svalbard is closer to Ex-Dragoon's original number.

This is based on a Norwegian language posting by mjohnstone39 that was posted on January 23, 2006 and subsequently translated by myself.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325301.html#msg325301
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325493.html#msg325493

This seems to suggest a crew of 20 officers, 28 other ranks and a helidet of 4.  It also has carrying capacity for 75 supernumeraries.

Although the original article has disappeared a more current Norwegian article, http://www.mil.no/sjo/kv/start/fartoyene/article.jhtml?articleID=156016 ,
describes a crewing arrangement of 20 officers per “work shift” and a OR establishment of 45 divided into 3 shifts of 15 with only two shifts being aboard at a time.  That equates to a working crew of 50.

 

[karl28]

        I really do not know a heck of allot about Navy stuff but thought I might give this a try I noticed most people had forgotten about Aux class ships like the Orca so I included them in my list and crew numbers although I couldn't find the crew numbers for the two fire class fire boats the only source I have for crew numbers is Wiki so here is hoping that there accurate .

Type :      Class :      Quantity :      Crew Size :      Total Crew :
CVH        Cavour            1                  794                  794
LPD        Sanatonio        2                  361                722
AOR        Supply              2                  160                320
DDG        Arleigh Burke    8                  273                2,184
SSK          Type 212          4                    27                108

AUX       
                Orca                8                      24                  192
                Glenn              10                    6                    60
                Fire                  2                      ?                    ?
                                                                Total Crew : 4,380



Just a note I didn't include any troop number carried  by those vessels as I thought those numbers would come through the army number .

 

[dapaterson]

One risk with only two of a class is that the moment you begin a refit program you're down to a single hull for three oceans - limiting flexibility tremendously.

 

[Neill McKay]

        I really do not know a heck of allot about Navy stuff but thought I might give this a try I noticed most people had forgotten about Aux class ships like the Orca so I included them in my list and crew numbers although I couldn't find the crew numbers for the two fire class fire boats the only source I have for crew numbers is Wiki so here is hoping that there accurate .

It doesn't affect your bottom line much, but just for your own information the fire boats and tugs (including the Glens) are operated by civilian DND employees, not CF members.  The ORCAs are principally used for training, so most of the 24 people shown as crew would actually be students.

 

[karl28]

        dapaterson and N Mckay thanks for the input I know some classes I was stretching thing being only one or two vessels but was trying to get as much as I could with the numbers aloud thanks again for the feed back .

 

[Klinkaroo]

To add on to that, the Orca only requires 4 people to sail. The rest are students with their Course Training Officer.

And like N. McKay said, the tugs, barges, fireboats, tenders, ect are run by the Canadian Forces Fleet Auxiliary. Not 100% sure on this, but if I remember correctly the Dive Tenders as well are crewed with regards to engineering and deck officers by the CF Fleet Auxiliary. As are the Torpedo Tenders in Nanoose.

 

[canuck101]

Well here is my selection for a dream Navy:


• 3 Berlin Class AOR
• 3 Svalbard Offshore Patrol Vessel
• 8 Type 212 Submarines
• 3  De Zeven Provincien Frigates
• 9 F-125 Frigates
• 8 Armidale Class Patrol Boats
• 3 Endurance Class LPD

 

[Monsoon]

To add on to that, the Orca only requires 4 people to sail. The rest are students with their Course Training Officer.

Four people can ferry it across the harbour; if you want to use it for any kind of operational role, you need about 15, minimum.

 

[karl28]

I really do not know a heck of allot about Navy stuff but thought I might give this a try I noticed most people had forgotten about Aux class ships like the Orca so I included them in my list and crew numbers although I couldn't find the crew numbers for the two fire class fire boats the only source I have for crew numbers is Wiki so here is hoping that there accurate .

Type :      Class :      Quantity :      Crew Size :      Total Crew :
LPD        Mistral            3                  310                  930
AOR        Berlin            4                  139                  556
DDG      Arliegh burke  9                273                  2457
SSK        U212              6                27                    162

AUX       
                Orca                8                      24                  192
                Glenn              10                    6                    60
                Fire                  2                      ?                    ?
                                                                Total Crew : 4357

After some feedback that I got here is my revised list .  I think this list is allot better than my original list .

 

[STONEY]

When posters on this subject state that they don't have much knowledge of Naval Matters that was an understatement to say the least.  To keep 4400 sailors deployed on ships would take 15,000 if not more in the Navy.  Everyone failes to take into account or just ignore things such a training , leave, medical , logistics and many other reasons too numerous to mention.  Just as the Army requires many soldiers in the chain for every one deployed  so the Navy with its many technical trades requires if anything even more in the chain for everyone deployed.  Just something to keep in mind when crunching numbers. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

When posters on this subject state that they don't have much knowledge of Naval Matters that was an understatement to say the least.  To keep 4400 sailors deployed on ships would take 15,000 if not more in the Navy.  Everyone failes to take into account or just ignore things such a training , leave, medical , logistics and many other reasons too numerous to mention.  Just as the Army requires many soldiers in the chain for every one deployed  so the Navy with its many technical trades requires if anything even more in the chain for everyone deployed.  Just something to keep in mind when crunching numbers.

Again OGBs intent was to have a little fun and see what others came up with. I think as a LCDR just recently retired he has an idea about manning issues and administration requirements.