Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier

[navymich]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/510467.html

Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier
Rear Admiral says military interested in vessel to carry choppers
By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter

The Canadian military needs an aircraft carrier if it wants to send expeditionary forces to hot spots around the world, an internationally renowned naval expert said Thursday in Halifax.

Norman Friedman delivered the advice to about 150 people, most of them in uniform, attending a maritime security conference organized by Dalhousie University’s Centre for Foreign Policy Studies.

"Because your navy got very good at operating very large helicopters, you get somewhat more out of it than other navies do — that’s a nice thing," Mr. Friedman, an American physicist specializing in strategic and technological naval problems, said in an interview.

"But if you’re going to operate expeditionary (forces), independently, I’m talking about a carrier."

Rather than a small helicopter carrier, Mr. Friedman indicated the best bet would be a large ship that could launch fighter-bombers.

"In the real world, there are a lot of places where you want to operate where no one likes you," he said. "That’s the nature of warfare."

He questioned how Canadian aircraft would get to such places if there were no friendly country nearby to use as a base.

"If I were a soldier in the Canadian army . . . I would worry a lot about who would be there to support me when I’m on the ground being fired at."

Mr. Friedman pointed out that Canada used to operate aircraft carriers. The last one was decommissioned nearly 36 years ago.

"Given the size of the country, you can manage it," he said, stressing that he wasn’t telling Canada how to run its military. "Americans always get bombed for saying rotten things in Canada, deservedly. . . . If you want to be more sovereign, you’ve got to think these things through yourselves."

But if Canada wants to launch its own expeditionary forces, it needs a carrier armed with planes that can protect troops, Mr. Friedman said.

"Otherwise you’re going to have a lot of dead Canadians who don’t deserve to be dead . . . because they won’t have any air support."

The Canadian military is interested in acquiring a small carrier, said Rear Admiral Dan McNeil, the commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic. It would be equipped with large helicopters that could ferry troops ashore.

"But (we don’t want) a conventional aircraft carrier that catapults fighter jets into the air because, quite frankly, I don’t see a need for that in the Canadian context," Rear Admiral McNeil said.

To learn more about the concept, the Canadian navy plans to send several frigates on a set of exercises this fall with the USS Gunston Hall, an amphibious assault ship designed to transport soldiers around the world and then put them ashore using landing craft and large helicopters.

Some of Canada’s Sea King helicopters, most of which are more than 40 years old, will be used to carry troops during the exercise.

A small carrier "certainly makes sense" for the Canadian navy, Rear Admiral McNeil said.

"The former government actually did buy into it, and we have to keep working on the principles to see if, in fact, this new government wants to do that," he said.

"We only make recommendations; the government decides."

Mr. Friedman is the latest in a long line of military experts who have suggested this country needs some kind of carrier.

Three years ago, retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie floated the idea during a visit to Halifax that our navy needs two small aircraft carriers like HMS Ark Royal, a 205-metre British vessel used during the Iraq war to carry commandos in an amphibious assault. He pegged the cost of a small carrier at about $1.8 billion.

Last year, Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said the military wants "a big, honking ship" that can carry a Canadian battalion of soldiers and large helicopters.

Canada decommissioned its last aircraft carrier, HMCS Bonaventure, on July 1, 1970. Coincidentally, the navy held a ceremony in Halifax this week for a former Bonaventure captain. Robert Timbrell, a retired rear admiral who died in April at his Chester Basin home, was captain of the Bonaventure from 1963 to 1965.

( clambie@herald.ca)

 

[vonGarvin]

"Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier"

Float?  Aircraft Carrier?  Am I the only one to get it?  :rofl:

 

[navymich]

Well, floating IS the whole point of having a ship on the water vonG.  Yes, I noticed it too, but I'll let you have your fun.  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

Well, floating IS the whole point of having a ship on the water vonG.  Yes, I noticed it too, but I'll let you have your fun.  ;D

Thank you! 


(Trust me, I'm having WAY too much fun!)

 

[17thRecceSgt]

I was gonna be on this one but...alas, I see someone has gotten there first...

or...dare I say...

"that ship has already sailed"

 

[17thRecceSgt]

"But (we don’t want) a conventional aircraft carrier that catapults fighter jets into the air because, quite frankly, I don’t see a need for that in the Canadian context," Rear Admiral McNeil said.

or...when put thru the VSF (Veiled Speech Filter)

We don't got no planes that can do that.  We don't got no money to buy planes that can do that.

 

[vonGarvin]

I was gonna be on this one but...alas, I see someone has gotten there first...

or...dare I say...

"that ship has already sailed"

Well done! 

 

[17thRecceSgt]

thank you...thank you very muchhhhhhhh

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The Brits have operated smaller aircraft carriers because of the Harrier.  This may prove possible if we go with the JSF with the short-takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) version.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Here's a link to a site with info on the USS Gunston Hall referred to in the piece.

http://navysite.de/ships/lsd44.htm

 

[Michael Dorosh]

"Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier"

Float?  Aircraft Carrier?  Am I the only one to get it?  :rofl:

Hey, he's an American physicist, after all. I thought the use of the word "expert" was the funny part.

 

[HItorMiss]

I worked off the Gunston Hall back in 01 with Dukes Coy when 1 RCR was IRFL(NATO) god how I hated that ship, but the concept was great we but a whole company of infantry to shore in less time then it took for us to normally get there if we were deploying from our home base to the field.

I have always liked the idea of the mini Carrier but I also agree were going to need air support and not just helo's to get us ashore.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Hey, he's an American physicist, after all. I thought the use of the word "expert" was the funny part.

Ummm....you may want to hit the attached link before you second-guess his credibility.


Matthew. 

Link:  http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/103-9366877-6655858?%5Fencoding=UTF8&index=books&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank&field-author-exact=Norman%20Friedman

 

[toglmonster]

I would love to see the Canadian Navy get two Wasp LHD's, but where would we get the money or the man power. We already or soon will new orders for C-17, Hercules, and Chinook's and what about the new JSS???

 

[Armymatters]

He might be refering to a ship of the type of the South Korean Landing Platform eXperimental (LPX) Dokdo class Amphibious assault ship, which if fitted with a 15-17 meter in length ski-jump, can operate F-35B's or Harriers. Crew size is reasonable, around 300 men, which is around the same as the Protecteur class replentishment ship we have, and has space for 700 soldiers. Engines are by S.E.M.T. Pielstick, the same manufacturer as the Halifax frigate's diesel engine. A combination carrier/landing ship will deal with both issues at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone. If the CF is getting JSF, might as well convert a part of the order for 20 F-35B STOVL versions as well.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/lp-x.htm

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ugh...would be nice if these so called experts would let us get the basics(AAW, ASuW, ASW) worked on before getting the luxuries(carrier ops).

 

[Kirkhill]

"But (we don’t want) a conventional aircraft carrier that catapults fighter jets into the air because, quite frankly, I don’t see a need for that in the Canadian context," Rear Admiral McNeil said.

or...when put thru the VSF (Veiled Speech Filter)

We don't got no planes that can do that.  We don't got no money to buy planes that can do that.

Mudman... I coulda swore that the CF-18 Hornet was the F-18 Hornet that the USMC and USN are launching off of carriers  ;D  

Of course ours might be a bit too "brittle" by now to trying throwing into the sky and stopping them with an anchor.

Regardless.  Let's just see if we can build the JSS before we start planning a CVN Battle Group.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

But we certainly wouldn't have gotten the ones complete with the arresting wire hook (insert technical name here) gadgets would we have??

I thought (maybe wrongly) that there was quite a bit of difference in the carrier-born version of the Hornet, because of the stress's on an airframe used in carrier ops??

 

[17thRecceSgt]

I wonder if THAT would help pilot recruiting/retention?

Carrier Ops.

 

[Kirkhill]

Honestly, you could be right about the construction. I really don't have a clue.  I do seem to recall some discussion about the tailhooks still being in place so that the aircraft could be trapped on an arrester wire on a damaged or short field......or my imagination might be running rampant.