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

Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier

It seems to me that the idea of an independent Canadian expeditionary force is simply a non-starter.  And in any coalition force of which we are likely to be a member other members will be able to provide carrier air support if necessary.

Whereas an amphibious assault ship does make sense when operating in a coalition.

Mark
Ottawa
 
I'm sure Canada could afford an aircraft carrier, if that became a naitonal priority.  But the carrier is only part of the equation -- as several posters have alluded to.  Without getting into other aspects of the CF that will have to be replaced or augmented within the next few years, an aircraft carrier is only one ship in a coordinated battle group.

Let's assume we're talking about a small carrier with a single squadron of VSTOL capable aircraft, plus supporting helos, etc.  That ship will require tanker and supply ships, destroyer/frigate escorts (some of which would have to be capable of limited shore bombardment capability), and God knows what other kinds of ships.  I can't imagine a battle group centered on a small carrier numbering less than 10-12 ships. 

Like Mark, I think an assault ship makes more sense.  But I can also see Canadians deciding on a larger navy, including one or two small carriers.  Competition with China and a re-armed Japan might make it necessary.  It's certainly a possibility. 

Jim
 
MarkOttawa said:
It seems to me that the idea of an independent Canadian expeditionary force is simply a non-starter.  And in any coalition force of which we are likely to be a member other members will be able to provide carrier air support if necessary.

In our admittedly brief history as a nation, Canada has never,ever sent an independent expeditionary force overseas - and in fact, never sent troops overseas via Canadian means - we've always had the US or Britain transporting our troops, be it South Africa, the wars, or Korea. Which is why I wonder why the occasional person will express the opinion that having a small navy is a "travesty" - we were very well able to fight German U-boats in the big one, but we've never had to go it alone, nor are we likely to. Sticking to what we're good at makes more sense - a larger army with air assets would be more in line with what we can do to pay our allies back.  Decent submarines and ice breakers for the north would be of more value strategically, IMO, than an aircraft carrier.

Edit for spelling
 
Let's assume we're talking about a small carrier with a single squadron of VSTOL capable aircraft, plus supporting helos, etc.  That ship will require tanker and supply ships, destroyer/frigate escorts (some of which would have to be capable of limited shore bombardment capability), and God knows what other kinds of ships.  I can't imagine a battle group centered on a small carrier numbering less than 10-12 ships. 

[/quote] why 12? the U.S. manages quite well with 5 escorts and an AOR.
 
Um -- let me check.  I think the 5 escorts and AOR are the ships that are always in company with the carrier.  Battle groups, when committed in a hostile environment, always contain more ships than that.  At least, that's how I read the last article I saw on the subject.

Jim
 
Where are the sailors going to come from ?

There are already positions going unfilled. 
 
Its simple Whiskey...they will come from the same place as the aircraft carrier,....a press release.
 
An aircraft carrier in our fleet might draw some interest from the public, to fill those spots, or, all those in teh Navy who want to leave might think twice if they possibly could be posted on the Carrier
 
Inspir said:
Wow, just googled the price for a new aircraft carrier:

- Average aircraft carrier price: 4 billion dollars
- Annual operating cost: 2 billion dollars

Of course this is for the "21ST CENTURY CARRIER". I'm sure if we ever did get a carrier it would be a used one  :dontpanic:


Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281161.html

I just got shivers remembering the Liberal attack ad from the last election....


Matthew.  :o
 
Speaking of Liberals, I'm sure when they heard the word "aircraft carrier" this is what they had in mind.

USAF-Aircraft-Carrier.jpg


Foooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooore!
 
How many F-35s do we plan on getting, and are they the A(US$45mill), B(US$60mill), or C(US$50mill) models?  And after we get them, how do we pay for a carrier?  Or can we get those on layaway.....
 
Michael Dorosh said:
In our admittedly brief history as a nation, Canada has never,ever sent an independent expeditionary force overseas - and in fact, never sent troops overseas via Canadian means - we've always had the US or Britain transporting our troops, be it South Africa, the wars, or Korea. Which is why I wonder why the occasional person will express the opinion that having a small navy is a "travesty" - we were very well able to fight German U-boats in the big one, but we've never had to go it alone, nor are we likely to. Sticking to what we're good at makes more sense - a larger army with air assets would be more in line with what we can do to pay our allies back.  Decent submarines and ice breakers for the north would be of more value strategically, IMO, than an aircraft carrier.

Edit for spelling

Um actually Canada has launched one amphibious assault independantly. But it was a all navy show in El Salvador in 1932.
 
techie said:
An aircraft carrier in our fleet might draw some interest from the public, to fill those spots, or, all those in teh Navy who want to leave might think twice if they possibly could be posted on the Carrier

Ahh another ignorant person talking out thier rear aperture again. Go ask soome yank sailors what they think of being posted to a carrier is like. All the ones I have ever talked to dislike it cause the ship and crew are so large they are just numbers. They would rather be on a small ship. So yeah most people I know here would be the same way. So great retention idea.
 
Inspir said:
Speaking of Liberals, I'm sure when they heard the word "aircraft carrier" this is what they had in mind.

What's tha par?
 
sledge said:
Um actually Canada has launched one amphibious assault independantly. But it was a all navy show in El Salvador in 1932.

Exactly how can sliding up to a dock in sunny Acatjutla to untwist the knickers of half a dozen spousal units of English diplomats be considered an amphibious assault? [without any orders from the government to do so, I might add. Or should I say, on "Hose" orders were they acting?] 
 
Currently, the US Navy uses a flexible approach to carrier battle groups (main source: Wikpedia and records of actual cruises.)

Carrier Strike Groups or Battle Groups have different makeup depending on the mission.  Lists of ships making up the battle group of various US carriers on cruises made within the last twenty years range from as few as five to as many as ten ships.  Generally, the strike group is set up as follows:

- one carrier, Nimitz or Kitty Hawk class
- two guided missile cruisers, Ticonderoga class
- two or three guided missile destroyers, Arleigh Burke class
- one frigate, Oliver Hazard Perry class
- two attack submarines, Los Angeles class
- one resupply vessel, Sacramento or Supply class

In all of the dozen or so cruises I found informaiton on, only one attack sub was assigned as part of the strike group.  The resupply vessel would, in many, if not most, cases, be supplemented by a second supply ship. 

A deployment into an area where submarines are a threat would result in more frigates being assigned as part of the strike group.

Generally, a carrier attack group would be supported by one or more independent ASW/AAW forces.  In addition, additional forces might be assigned, such as a Marine assault force.

So, a carrier is just one of many vessels used to carry out missions assigned by national authority.  The accompanying battle group will vary in size depending on length of mission, type of mission, and threat analysis.

Jim
 
Real Power from Aircraft Carriers:
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the copyright act.

U.S. begins massive war games in Pacific

HAGATNA, Guam (AP) -- Three aircraft carriers filled the skies with fighters as one of the largest U.S. military exercises in decades got underway Tuesday off this island in the western Pacific.

For the first time ever, a Chinese delegation was sent to observe the U.S. war games. But as the show of American military power began, North Korea -- one of the region's most unpredictable countries -- was rattling some swords of its own.

The maneuvers, dubbed "Valiant Shield," bring three carriers together in the Pacific for the first time since the Vietnam War. Some 30 ships, 280 aircraft and 22,000 troops will be participating in the five-day war games, which end Friday.
The exercises are intended to boost the ability of the Navy, Air Force and Marines to work together and respond quickly to potential contingencies in this part of the world, U.S. military officials said. Even U.S. Coast Guard vessels were joining in the maneuvers.

"The exercises are taking place on land, sea, air, space and cyberspace," said Senior Master Sgt. Charles Ramey. "They cover the whole spectrum."

The maneuvers mark the first major operation in this remote U.S. territory about halfway between Hawaii and Japan since the announcement last month that 8,000 Marines would be moved here from Okinawa in part of the biggest realignment of the U.S. forces in Asia in decades.

Though planned months ago, they come amid heightened concern in Asia over North Korea.

Officials in the United States, South Korea and Japan say they believe North Korea is preparing to test launch a Taepodong 2 long-range ballistic missile. The missile is believed be able to reach parts of the western United States. (Full story)

Pyongyang shocked Tokyo by launching a Taepodong that flew over Japan's main island in 1998. North Korea claimed the launch successfully placed a satellite in orbit, but that claim has been widely disputed.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il agreed on a moratorium on long-range missile launches during a summit with Japan in 1999. But Pyongyang said Tuesday it is no longer bound by that accord.

Military officials here had no comment on the activity in North Korea, or on what specific tactics or scenarios are being used in the exercises.

They stress, however, that the exercises have been opened to outside observation and are not intended to provoke North Korea.

"These exercises are not aimed at any one nation," Cmdr. Mike Brown said.

The exercises are instead intended to provide training in "detecting, locating, tracking and engaging" a wide range of threats in the air, land and sea.

Representatives from China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Russia and Singapore were invited to attend.

China's presence has been singled out as particularly significant.

Though military relations between Beijing and Washington cooled when an American spy plane was captured in 2001, senior U.S. military officials are cautiously trying to mend the rift. At the same time, the Pentagon has expressed strong concern over the secrecy that shrouds China's rapidly modernizing military.

Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific, said before the exercises began that implicit in the invitation was the expectation that China would reciprocate.

China's 10-member delegation includes one top-ranking officer each from the People's Liberation Army, air force and navy, the official Xinhua News Agency said Tuesday.

"The invitation to observe the U.S. military exercises is a very important component of exchanges between the militaries of China and the United States," Xinhua quoted an unidentified Defense Ministry official as saying.

Along with the USS Kitty Hawk, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln carrier strike groups, U.S. force fighters and B-2 bombers operating out of Guam's Andersen Air Force Base will join the maneuvers.

Brown said the exercises were to be held again next year, and then become a biennial event.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
 
I don't think it is appropriate to look to how the Americans escort their aircraft carriers, as they have the largest and most expensive carriers in the world. Canada will probally never in our lifetime get a carrier that big. I think it is more appropirate to look at how nations with smaller aircraft carriers (re: UK, Italy, Spain) escort their carriers as if Canada does acquire an aircraft carrier, it will be smaller than any American aircraft carrier and more of the size of the smaller aircraft carriers of the world.
 
I reiterate:

Michael O'Leary said:
* How about: No clear definition of requirement to justify construction of ship and concurrent development of a ship-borne fast air capability.  It's usually best to start the estimate process at the beginning.

This is going down the same road all of the "let's buy these planes" threads did.  Start at the beginning.  Justify the need for a carrier.  Justify the expense.  Present the argument you would like to see your MP offer to explain the need for a carrier to (a.) the House of Parliament and (b.) your fellow constituents.  Once you establish the need, and convince the "buyers", then start kicking tires and picking seat covers.
 
Back
Top