Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier

[17thRecceSgt]

Any pilots/tech's care to weigh in on our speculations???

 

[MarkOttawa]

Possibilities:

Dutch
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

French
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/mistral_pm00192001.aspx

UK
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1811

US
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd17/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Armymatters]

Possibilities:

Dutch
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

French
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/mistral_pm00192001.aspx

UK
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1811

US
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd17/

Mark
Ottawa

Don't forget South Korea and their latest toy as well.

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??

I think that our Hornet's are the same as the USN Hornet's, sans some differences in the avionics suite.

 

[aesop081]

I think that our Hornet's are the same as the USN Hornet's, sans some differences in the avionics suite.

My god...do you ever shut up ?

 

[Kirkhill]

Tailhook pins mentioned here

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip_vr/vr_tour/preflight_intro_e.asp?pID=3

And an image purportedly from a CF-18 here
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/001-100/walk030_CF-18wingfold/walk030.htm

Again though, even if the planes might be capable - too big money for big boat and little friends I think.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Again though, even if the planes might be capable - too big money for big boat and little friends* I think.

* 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.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

I was on the Air Force website but found squat, so its good you did.

Now the question is why did the JTFA Cmdr, RAdm McNeil, say we don't want that capability?  Is it because we are only talking "baby" carriers and not the ones need to launch F-18s off of?  Or they will be decommissioned before the ship is ready...

 

[17thRecceSgt]

* 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.

Seen

 

[3rd Horseman]

Maybe they are going to buy back the Bonni from India? That would be insult to injury now would it not?

 

[Mortar guy]

You mean buy back the Bonnie from Schick and Gillette, right?

MG

 

[Kirkhill]

* 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.

That too.... 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Maybe they are going to buy back the Bonni from India? That would be insult to injury now would it not?

Gawd....don't tell me that Urban Legend is still around.....

 

[3rd Horseman]

You mean buy back the Bonnie from Schick and Gillette, right?

MG

Yes l mean Bonnie! I guess it is so is thier any proof it did not get switched in the canal for its sister ship and sent to india under new or should I say Bonnie registration.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just where are all the bodies for such a ship supposed to come from?

 

[3rd Horseman]

Just a note...bodies go in bags, soldiers, sailors and airman go in uniform. pet peeve, sorry had to

 

[17thRecceSgt]

The 5th Force, the CN Marines??

Seriously, what size crew are we talking?  Roughly, that is.

Is the Navy that hurting?  I know I am in Halifax but...I don't hear much about the Navy.

 

[Rigger]

It's been a few years, but the last I can remember is that are Hornets are mostly carrier capable. The only change is a small mod on the nose oleo (landing gear) to disable the catapult arm/adapter. Hook that back up and they are good to go.

 

[Armymatters]

To give an idea of crew requirements and air wing size for such a proposed small carrier, I've complied a list of them, and have included carrier-like landing ships as well. Airplane is also listed.

Pure Aircraft Carriers:
UK Invincible class VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 20,500 tons full load
Aircraft: 24 aircraft, various mix
Crew size: 725, plus 365 for air wing

UK Queen Elizabeth CVF STOVL carrier
Displacement: 55,000 tons full load
Aircraft: 30 JSF, 4 ASaC aircraft, 6 ASW helicopters
Crew size: 600, plus 600 for air wing

Italy's Conte di Cavour VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 27,100 tons full load
Aircraft: 12-16 Harrier's (JSF planned), 3 AEW helicopters, 4-6 ASW helicopters. Max 24 aircraft
Crew size: 450, plus 203 air wing. Accommodation for 1,210 total available.
Notes: hangar can double as vehicle hold, if aircraft not embarked, capacity of 24 tanks or more lighter vehicles, fitted with side vehicle access ramps as well as two elevators

Italy's Garibaldi VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 13,850 tons full load
Aircraft: 16 Harrier's or 18 helicopters (Sea King sized)
Crew size: 550, plus 230 air wing

Thailand's Chakri Naruebet class VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 11,500 tons full load
Aircraft: 10 Harrier's or 10 helicopters
Crew size: 455, plus 145 air wing.

Spain's Principe de Asturias VSTOL carrier
Displacement: 17,190 tons full load
Aircraft: 12 Harrier's and 12 helicopters (Sikorsky SeaHawk series)
Crew size: 600, plus 230 air wing.

Amphibious Assault Ships

Spain's Buque de Proyección Estratégica LHD
Displacement: 27,000 tons full load
Aircraft: 20 Harrier's in aircraft carrier mode
Crew size: 243, Air wing: 172, troops: 902
Vehicle capacity: two levels, 6,000m total, capacity for 6,000 tonnes load each. Stern dock for four LCM landing boats or one LCAC.

Italy's San Giorgio class LHD
Displacement: 7650 tons full load
Aircraft: 3 Sea King's
Crew size: 190, troops: 330
Vehicle capacity: 30 tanks, or up to 36 tracked armoured vehicles. 3 landing craft

UK's Ocean class LPH
Displacement: 21,578 tons full load
Aircraft: 12 EH-101 sized helicopters, six Lynx helicopters
Crew size: 284, air wing: 180,troops: 800
Vehicle capacity: 40 vehicles. 4 landing craft. Not designed for landing tanks

France's Foudre class LPD
Displacement: 21,578 tons full load
Aircraft: 11 Super Puma sized helicopters, 2 Super Frelons
Crew size: 223, troops: 467. Emergency accomodation for 1,600.
Vehicle capacity: 60 vehicles. 10 landing craft.

South Korea's Landing Platform eXperimental Dokdo class LPD
Displacement: 18,800 tons full load
Aircraft: 15 helicopters (Sikorsky S-70), can be fitted for Harrier or JSF use
Crew size: 300, troops: 720.
Vehicle capacity: Up to 200 vehicles. 2 LCAC's

Japan's Osumi class LST
Displacement: 8,900 tons standard
Aircraft: 2 Chinook's, 2 Sikorsky S-70's
Crew size: 138, troops: 330.
Vehicle capacity: 10-20 tanks, plus 40 large vehicles. 2 LCAC's

Pretty much an overview of current and future ships from allied nations.

 

[Bert]

Quote from the original article...
>
"But if you’re going to operate expeditionary (forces), independently, I’m talking about a carrier."

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."

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.
<

If Canada pumps enough money into the capability, then anything is possible.
But reality is what you bump into with your eyes open and the lights turned
on.

Discussing the micro-details of aircraft is one thing, but the larger consideration
of HOW Canada could provide effective air support/transport to Canadian troops
as part of an independent expeditionary force is another thing.  

Carrier threads regarding Canada can be searched on army.ca and I won't restate
whats been written before.  Yet the cost of acquiring the carrier, the aircraft, the
crews, maintenance of naval vessels, aircraft, crew and ship rotation, providing
effective defense of a carrier group (sub, surface, air, sat) , etc, should be considered in
parallel with the scenarios the carrier would be used independently by Canada or  
as part of another carrier group.   Is it a practical investment given the combined capability
of the CF?

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

let me guess, if the CF did this and the government  got behind it and decided to buy into the plan.

at least 10 years before the ship was floating in dry dock, airforce planes would be need of major replacing and retraining, cost of 2 aircraft lines would be very costly. so the old CF 18 would have to go.

cost to replace the Cf 18 how many  billions?
plan to purchase new aircraft how many hundreds of millions spent on planning ?
purchase trainiing equipment or will home pc and one good dvd do it all?
6 billion if one aircraft would be able to be equipped to do both land and sea operations?

now a ship? or would it require 2 ships , east and west coast ops?
how many more aircraft would it require for both coasts ?
would the new current helicopter fit in the hangers on the new ships? ( remember the hangers and the city class troubles)
crew how many required? where would they train at to have a training staff to actually train the crews ?
the costs would end up eating every cent in the DND  budget for life? no more army, airforce or donut warriors at HQ jobs