Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier

[Old Guy]

Michael,

I agree completely.  However, is there any possibility that such an argument (Canada needs a carrier!) is likely to gain any traction in the forseeable future?  I don't think so either.  I'm sure that's why the thread has gone directly to: "Gee, if we could have a carrier, what color should it be?".

Besides, weapons systems have a way of morphing away from original justifications.  One example is the A-10 Warthog, discussed at length in other posts.  Another is the Abrahms MBT.  Designed for combat with Soviet forces on the plains of Germany, it has become a first-rate (though not perfect) street fighter -- a job for which it was never seriously considered nor justified for.

So the question, "Does Canada need an aircraft carrier?", can be answered in many ways.  As you correctly point out, SOME kind of justification has to occur or no such vessel will ever be built.  But is this justification likely to be a carefully laid out staff study?  Or is it more likely to be a political event we can't predict?

Obviously, a foreign power rubbing Canada's lack of sea power in the electorate's collective face might be one.  Another could be the sight of Canadian soldiers and airmen dying in some overseas hotspot because US carrier support is too far away to provide support.

The list is endless.

Me, I'm just tossing out ideas and information.  >

BTW, for those of you a trifle familiar with my writing, I have a novel outlined in which a scratch Marine unit and a small Canadian outfit are committed to action in a small island nation just off the African coast.  Their task is to put an end to mass murder and torture (such as was not done in other African situations!).  Unfortunately, the combined force is committed without adequate support and they immediately run into far more opposition than anyone suspected.  Yes!  An intelligence failure compounded by stupidity.  Imagine that.

Maybe, as part of the background, I'll have a partly completed assault carrier sitting in a Canadian harbor somewhere, delayed by bureaucratic bungling and a lack of committment.  Heh.

Nah.  That would never happen.  :
So . . . will the book ever get written?  I dunno.  This damn job keeps me busy.
jim 

 

[Kirkhill]

Jim brings up an interesting point about the discussion on whether technology or tactics leads:  Do you adjust tactics to accomodate available technology or technology to accomodate tactics?

It seems to me in peace time you have the difficulty of: not knowing who your next enemy is really going to be; not knowing how you are going to be attacked; nor where nor when; nor if you yourself are going to be attacking instead of defending.  At the same time you have the "luxury" of time to ponder all these imponderables and develop technologies to meet all sorts of situations.  Solutions are heavily weighted towards what worked the last time.  Due to lack of funds available in peacetime you don't always get the technology you want/need to meet all possible threats.

Meanwhile potential enemies are looking at your tactics and technology on open display and determining how to invalidate them.  They then attack away from strength.  The best you can then hope for is that some of your technology will maintain some capabilities, often at the edge of their operational envelopes.  You end up making do with what's available and adjusting both tactics and technology accordingly.

So in peacetime technology slowly develops in great leaps to accomodate tactics,  neither being sure that they will be the correct answer for the next enemy.  In conflict, tactics adjusts quickly based on available technology and then technology hustles to catch up.

So does Canada need a Carrier?  How good is your imagination?  If we had one we could probably figure out how to take advantage of it.  The fact that we don't have one means that we have to look at other ways of working.  Orbiting US B52s from Diego Garcia is one alternative solution, as Duey mentioned on another thread.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The only caveat I'd add is that we need to ensure we're not looking at the world exactly as it looks today, and instead looking ahead 15-years - 25-years at what the world will look like then, and the potential applications at that point.  In particular, if you look at the demographics Africa I think things are going to get much worse from a failed state standpoint and we have to decide if the lives we can save by deploying ground forces with fast air support to halt genocides is worth our investment or if instead we're spend those funds in other ways (debt reduction, tax cuts, [gag]institutional childcare[/gag]).

Bottom Line:  The type of deployments we're willing to participate in over the next 20 years (defined by: the type of conflict, the strength of the enemy, the support of allies with their assets and the geographic location) should be driving all procurement, not just talk of a carrier and fast air assets.  My own take is that there are a lot of assets I think we need to add before we buy F-35's at this point, but if we're buying LHD's (as opposed to LPD's), I'd be ensuring I had the ability to carry the JSF if we determined we need it later.

Current Procurement Priorities:
Replace the C-130 before they fall from the sky (which in my opinion includes C-17's)
Heavy Lift Helicopters
New Trucks (with special anti-IED armour upgrades)
Improved surveillance UAV providing 24-7 coverage of all deployment theatres (push access to information as far down the command structure as possible and tie into artillery support)
Uparmoring all ground assets including supply vehicles with focus on anti-IED armour
Add HIMARS to extend range of artillery support
Etc.

....in addition to ensuring the Reserves train with what they'll deploy with.


JMHO,

Matthew. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Add HIMARS to extend range of artillery support

From Blackshirt

And to that I would add, decrease the need for in theatre Air Support.  If the Air Force is being employed to occasionally deliver one or two 250-500 lb packages of HE with precision then the HIMARS/GMRLS-ATACMSP combination is capable of taking up some of that slack.  The range envelope is something like 70 to 100 km for the GMRLS and up to 300 km for the ATACMs.  They have the additional advantages of not needing a runway, being under the local commander's immediate control, and don't burn up a lot of gas just waiting for the fire call.

Which brings us back to the need for an aircraft carrier.

 

[GAP]

please what is "HIMARS/GMRLS-ATACMSP " ???

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry GAP.  These article gives some answers.

The HIMARS is the truckmounted version of the MRLS.  HIMARS carries one pod of 6 Missiles/Rockets or one ATACMS.  The MRLS Track is heavier but carries two pods of 6 or 2x ATACMS.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-140.html
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/mlrs.html

Cheers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Its always funny how the greater supporters for us getting an aircraft carrier are those that don't even sail.....

Our focus should be:
1) Replacing the AORs (now being done)
2) Retention and recruiting of new sailors
3) Gaining an Amphibious capability for expeditionary ops (Gen Hilliers BHS-being looked at)
4) Replacing the subs (not being done)
5) Replacing the 280s and Halifax classes (being looked at)
6) Improving our patrol and mine warfare capability
7) Gain a capability to operate up North (being talked about)
8) Maybe after those issues are addressed then maybe we should consider a small carrier.

Sorry to always rain on this parade but honestly we have other priorties in the Navy and a carrier is not one of them....

 

[FSTO]

3) Gaining an Amphibious capability for expeditionary ops (Gen Hilliers BHS-being looked at)


BHS would be the carrier type that our good expert was talking about in Halifax. Something that could launch more than 2 Helo's at a time would be very advantageous.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

3) Gaining an Amphibious capability for expeditionary ops (Gen Hilliers BHS-being looked at)


BHS would be the carrier type that our good expert was talking about in Halifax. Something that could launch more than 2 Helo's at a time would be very advantageous.

Agreed but most posters sem to be leaning towards a fixed winged type of carrier.

 

[Armymatters]

Agreed but most posters sem to be leaning towards a fixed winged type of carrier.

I am thinking more of a LHD type warship, a ship that can land troops and possibily launch fixed-wing airplanes. Something in the range of 15,000 to 24,000 tons for starters would be a good start and a decent balance between capability and costs.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

While an LHD type is ideal, I still don't see the need to go for fixed wing right away, nice to have but lets keep to the basics.

 

[Kirkhill]

While an LHD type is ideal, I still don't see the need to go for fixed wing right away, nice to have but lets keep to the basics.

Agreed.  Besides, who knows, maybe the STOVL F35 will get off the ground and be a viable alternative in the future. 15 to 20 years out.  In the meantime, it's nice that we might have started to think about walking.  No need to contemplate running just yet.

 

[Centurian1985]

"Bring back the Bonaventure!"   Ive heard this cry a few times.  Like previously posted, it has almost reached 'myth' status. 

Main points against an aircraft carrier purchase, from senior Canadian naval officers circa 1997:
1.  Support fleet - we dont have a 'support fleet', so need more than just the carrier, need a program designed to create Carrier Group.  (Already mentioned earlier in this thread)
2.  Power projection - the whole point of a carrier system is to project air power into any foriegn airspace.  Its not a platform for waving the flag, its a means of influencing the actons of another nation.  Who exactly are we going to intimidate? 

My point, based on todays situation:
3.  Time - already pointed out, takes a long time to build, outfit, train crew, and practice manouevres before actually going into action.  The vessel was decommissioned in 1970 because there was no use for it.  Up until 1990 there was no need for a carrier to support our operations in other countries.  We could have used it in 1991 in the Persian gulf, and right now, it could be of use to support operations in Afghansistan.  But will it still be feasable 10 years from now? 

 

[Armymatters]

Main points against an aircraft carrier purchase, from senior Canadian naval officers circa 1997:
1.  Support fleet - we dont have a 'support fleet', so need more than just the carrier, need a program designed to create Carrier Group.  (Already mentioned earlier in this thread)

I have been chewing on this issue for a short bit, and I think I have a solution. It's highly idealistic, but I tried to take into account for some of the variables, and have made allowances for sustainability.
Warships
Current fleet:

1. The 12 Halifax class frigates: 8 of them can be set aside as the support fleet. The other 4 are divided as follows: 2 for patrol work, and 2 in maintenance and training. They can be in the future replaced by a new fleet of 12 warships allocated from the Single Ship Transition Project (SSTP).

2. MCDV's: 6 of the MCDV's are to be transferred to the Coast Guard. The remaining 6 will be tasked as follows: 4 for MCM work, and 2 in maintenance and training.

3. Submarines: I am waiting to see how the Vic's turn out. If they will operate as spec, 2 will be tasked for patrols and deployments, while the remaining 2 are in maintenance and training. However, if the Vic's are not turning out as planned, the Vic's will be disposed of, an a new fleet of 6 submarines will be acquired. 4 will be tasked for patrols and deployments, while the remaining 2 are again maintenance and training.

Retirements/replacements in pipeline:

1. AOR's: The current 2 Protecteur class AOR's are to be retired. They will be replaced by a new fleet of 4 dedicated AOR's (no transport role). Of the 4, 2 will be tasked as part of the support fleet, and the remaining 2 are tasked as follows: 1 as part of a sea lift contingency, and the other one in maintenance and training.

2. Tribal Destroyers: 8 ships from the SSTP are to be allocated as the replacements for the current Tribals. Of those, they are to be allocated as follows: 2 as part of the support fleet, 2 attached to various USN carrier groups, 2 for UN or NATO deployments, and 2 in maintenance and training.

New builds in pipeline:

1. Northern Patrol Vessels (Armed Icebreakers): 3 will be acquired. 2 will be tasked for patrol work, and the remaining ship will be in maintenance and training.

New builds not in pipeline:

1. OPV's: 12 OPV's will be acquired, of which are divided into the following roles: 10 for patrol work, and the other 2 are in maintenance and training.

2. BHS/Mini-carrier: 2 ships of the LHD type, minimum of 20,000 tons. This ship will fill Hiller's desire for a Big Honkin' Ship. Ships allocated to the support fleet will accompany one of them, while the other is in maintenance and training. To save development costs, purchasing a foreign design for construction in a foreign shipyard, and fitted out for Canadian use in Canadian shipyards. If the situation demands however, both can be deployed, one as a landing ship, the other as a mini-carrier, or both as carriers. My personal preferred solution is Spain's Buque de Proyección Estratégica LHD.

3. RO/RO ships: 2 dedicated RO/RO ships will be acquired, either through direct purchase or long-term lease with immediate CF availability. If directly purchased and owned by the CF, the ship can be made available to allied nations through lease.

4. LCAC's: Depending on the ship design, a group of LCAC's will be procured. 6 will be sufficient, 2 will be assigned to the LHD, while the remaining 4 are spares, or in maintenance and training.

5. Landing craft: Alternatively, conventional landing craft can be procured instead of LCAC's.

Total new build ships: 31

Airplanes
Helicopters:

1. 54 Sikorsky S-92's will be acquired (26 more than the current order). Of those, 7 each are assigned to each LHD, 12 are in maintenance and training, 4 are assigned to the standing AOR, and 2 each to the other two operational AOR's.

2. Heavy Lift Helicopters: Such a ship should be able to embark at least 1 Chinook sized helicopter, and Chinooks (or something similar) are already in the pipeline.

Fixed wing aircraft:

1. F-35B: 40 F-35B's will be acquired, each ship carrying 14. Since one LHD is usually on deployment, 14 are on the deployment, the remaining 14 are in training, and the remaining 12 are in maintenance or as attrition spares.

Money spent: Untold billions of dollars.

2.  Power projection - the whole point of a carrier system is to project air power into any foriegn airspace.  Its not a platform for waving the flag, its a means of influencing the actons of another nation.  Who exactly are we going to intimidate?

Could be a third world nation that borders the sea (lots of third world nations border the sea) where UN resolutions need enforcement. "Follow the damned UN resolutions or else we bomb you back into the Stone Age"  : Places like Sudan, Liberia, Somalia (I heard Somalia is again on the outbreak of of civil war), Myanmar, etc. It can also be used for long term diaster relief in areas close to a ocean (like the 2004 Tsunami, where the Abraham Lincoln used its helicopters to fly in personnel and relief supplies to stricken areas. After Lincoln left, the LHD USS Bonhomme Richard and the hospital ship USNS Mercy took over). With the US mission to Indonesia during the Tsunami, international public opinion of the US soared, especially in Indonesia. Big potential as a PR booster for Canada externally, and for the Canadian Forces inside Canada.

Edit: I forgot. We also need to recruit more men and increase the military budget a bit.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Total new build ships: 31

Airplanes
Helicopters: 54 Sikorsky S-92's
Heavy Lift Helicopters

Fixed wing aircraft:
F-35B: 40 F-35B's will be acquired

Money spent: Untold billions of dollars.

Big potential as a PR booster for Canada externally, and for the Canadian Forces inside Canada.

Once again:

I reiterate:

* 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.

Nice leap from "I like the leg room in this ship" to "Why not buy the complete set."

You still haven't built a case for a major capital ship in the first place.  And a fleet project is a pretty expensive PR campaign.  perhaps we should confine ourselves to reality based discussions, or just flag them with [fantasy] ...[/fantasy] and we can just move them to Radio Chatter.

 

[navymich]

Edit: I forgot. We also need to recruit more men and increase the military budget a bit.

But no women.....and just "a bit"....oh wait, maybe that falls into the "fantasy fantasy" stuff too.  ;D

 

[Armymatters]

Once again:


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.



Nice leap from "I like the leg room in this ship" to "Why not buy the complete set."

You still haven't built a case for a major capital ship in the first place.  And a fleet project is a pretty expensive PR campaign.  perhaps we should confine ourselves to reality based discussions, or just flag them with [fantasy] ...[/fantasy] and we can just move them to Radio Chatter.

I know. Other than satisfying Hiller's BHS requirements, I myself am having trouble justifying a major capital ship purchase of this magnitude, besides a desire to see a proper Blue-water navy for Canada. I just showed how it can be escorted with current ships in place and with what needs to be procured on top of what is already in the pipeline.

But no women.....and just "a bit"....oh wait, maybe that falls into the "fantasy fantasy" stuff too.  ;D

I know the more PC word is "personnel", but to hell with it for now.

 

[Michael OLeary]

You forgot the markup:

I know. Other than satisfying Hiller's BHS requirements, I myself am having trouble justifying a major capital ship purchase of this magnitude, besides a desire to see a proper Blue-water navy for Canada.[fantasy] I just showed how it can be escorted with ... completely restructuring the ... current ships in place and with [the 31 other ships and assorted aircraft] what needs to be procured on top of what is already in the pipeline.[/fantasy]

 

[Armymatters]

You forgot the markup:

Thanks 

In short, I can't justify a carrier right now. I am more worried about sustainability of the Canadian Navy to maintain a steady tempo of deployments yearly, besides the current cycle of major deployments one year, and the next year almost none. After we fix the sustainability issue, then we MAYBE can talk about a mini-carrier. MAYBE.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Then why don't you put your intellectual meanderings towards practical suggestions supporting solutions to that problem, rather than fanstasy Navy establishments.

Study the realities of the limitations under which the CF works in today's world, then examine possible alternatives.  Trying to propose "solutions" that are well outside the realm of the possible is wasted effort.