Expert floats idea of Canadian aircraft carrier
- Thread starter navymich
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Michael O'Leary said:
I tend to follow the Naval League of Canada's paper, Canadian Naval Requirements for the 21st Century by Peter Haydon of the University of Calgary proposal for fleet sustainability. I tweaked the numbers a bit for my proposal of how to escort such a proposed carrier. It's getting a bit dated (published in late 2001), but it is still very relavant, and bang on in some issues (the armed icebreakers for example, they called for a fleet of 3 Northern Patrol Vessels back then, I guess that is where the Tories got the idea for armed icebreakers).
http://www.navyleague.ca/eng/ma/papers/Canadian%20Naval%20Requirements%20for%2021st%20Century.pdf
navymich said:
How dare you point out errors in my syntax
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
And we once had a plan for nuclear submarines too, but no-one has "floated" that for some time.
Reality based planning for short term, i.e., foreseeable future, measures is realistic. Fantasy navy plans are great for think tanks that don't bother to justify how a national budget and public relations initiative would actually have to buy and sell (respectively) their pipe dream.
Reality based planning for short term, i.e., foreseeable future, measures is realistic. Fantasy navy plans are great for think tanks that don't bother to justify how a national budget and public relations initiative would actually have to buy and sell (respectively) their pipe dream.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
BTW Army matters the SCSC calls for 16-18 ships to replace the CPF and 280s not the 12 you mention in a previous post.
- Reaction score
- 7,937
- Points
- 1,160
To be fair to armymatters - in spite of his "ordnung must sein" tone - nothing on his shopping list is out of the running with the exception of the "aircraft carriers" and the F35s.
In every other case the vessels are under consideration. He is quibbling about numbers.
He seems to be trading in 6 real MCDVs and 8-10 "proposed" SCSC/SSTP vessels as well as 3-5 out of the 6-8 "possible NPVs/Arctic Icebreakers" against 10 OPVs (also discussed previously) and 1-2 more AOR/JSS.
The nature of the BHS, whether JSS, LHD or RoRo and the number 1 or 2, seems to be very much up for debate.
16-18 SCSC + 2-3 JSS + 1-2 BHS + 6-8 NPVs = 25 to 31 new build hulls under consideration in any event. And we haven't made allowances for YAG/Orca/Inshore Patrol Vessels.
In every other case the vessels are under consideration. He is quibbling about numbers.
He seems to be trading in 6 real MCDVs and 8-10 "proposed" SCSC/SSTP vessels as well as 3-5 out of the 6-8 "possible NPVs/Arctic Icebreakers" against 10 OPVs (also discussed previously) and 1-2 more AOR/JSS.
The nature of the BHS, whether JSS, LHD or RoRo and the number 1 or 2, seems to be very much up for debate.
16-18 SCSC + 2-3 JSS + 1-2 BHS + 6-8 NPVs = 25 to 31 new build hulls under consideration in any event. And we haven't made allowances for YAG/Orca/Inshore Patrol Vessels.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,039
- Points
- 1,110
When I hear and read about the Standing Contingency Task Force (SCTF), I see a force that appears to be designed for power projection. If we truly want to have a battalion or so of troops floating around and then crossing over someones shore (by boat or aviation) then we truly need an aircraft carrier capable of putting up jets for both fleet defence and strike duties.
Please note that I am not advocating either the SCTF or an aircraft carrier. I am just suggesting that the two go together. An SCTF without a carrier might lead to some hurt feelings if it actually tries to operate in harm's way.
Carriers have huge manpower bills, and if you just buy one then what do you do when it needs refit?
I'll get out the pool and back into my sandbox now.
2B
Please note that I am not advocating either the SCTF or an aircraft carrier. I am just suggesting that the two go together. An SCTF without a carrier might lead to some hurt feelings if it actually tries to operate in harm's way.
Carriers have huge manpower bills, and if you just buy one then what do you do when it needs refit?
I'll get out the pool and back into my sandbox now.
2B
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,039
- Points
- 1,110
The helicopters are only a piece of the requirement. Without fighters you aren't really projecting power. You're projecting vulnerability.
To me, SCTF = Marine Corps and Marine Corps = requirement for Carriers with jets.
To me, SCTF = Marine Corps and Marine Corps = requirement for Carriers with jets.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,629
- Points
- 1,210
2Bravo said:
We do not have the manpower, money or public backing to get a traditional power projecting aircraft carrier. This talk of one is idiotic in my mind. But we can afford a ship that will carry a STOVL type fighter/bomber and helos.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,039
- Points
- 1,110
I am scared less of people advocating a carrier than of people advocating the SCTF without one.
How many Invicible-esque carriers would we get? You'd need more than one in order to guarantee having one ready at any given time. What SVTOL jet is going to go on this carrier? Yet another big-ticket program.
If we're going to spend some cash I'd be happy with some CH-47s and AH-64s over here. Leave the blue-water/USMC dreams for others.
How many Invicible-esque carriers would we get? You'd need more than one in order to guarantee having one ready at any given time. What SVTOL jet is going to go on this carrier? Yet another big-ticket program.
If we're going to spend some cash I'd be happy with some CH-47s and AH-64s over here. Leave the blue-water/USMC dreams for others.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,629
- Points
- 1,210
If we were to force our way ashore against prepared positions then yes we would need organic carrier based air support. But if you read the Draft SCTF Concept of Operations (its available at the CMS web site on the DIN), Page 8/21 Para 13 states: "While capable of participating in a MCO (Major Combat Operations), the SCTF is optimized for the centre of the spctrum of conflict (Peacetime Military Engagement - Peace Support - Major Combat Operations).
- Reaction score
- 7,937
- Points
- 1,160
What kind of timelines are we looking at here? Isn't SCTF a near term proposition broadly based on what is on hand or readily available? That pretty much puts a damper on any kind of "carrier" with fixed wing support - CH47s are doable. Maybe AH64s or ARHs are doable as well.
On the other hand CF-18 replacement isn't due until something like 2020-2025.
Suppose we assume some sort of BHS with a flat deck is going to show up someplace between now and then, capable of carrying CH47s and AH64s, how much more of a stretch would it be, assuming the F35 were purchased, to purchase something like 20 to 25% of the fleet as STOVL -Bs?
Nobody's going to invade anybody with 4 to 6 jets. On the other hand isn't that the level of air support that is being utilised for current ops?
2Bravo - who's getting better use out there? The RAF's Harriers or the AH64s? How about the Euros with their F16s? Are they getting any work?
On the other hand CF-18 replacement isn't due until something like 2020-2025.
Suppose we assume some sort of BHS with a flat deck is going to show up someplace between now and then, capable of carrying CH47s and AH64s, how much more of a stretch would it be, assuming the F35 were purchased, to purchase something like 20 to 25% of the fleet as STOVL -Bs?
Nobody's going to invade anybody with 4 to 6 jets. On the other hand isn't that the level of air support that is being utilised for current ops?
2Bravo - who's getting better use out there? The RAF's Harriers or the AH64s? How about the Euros with their F16s? Are they getting any work?
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,039
- Points
- 1,110
Kirkhill,
With regards to your question, I'd offer up the A-10 as the gold standard when it comes to resolving conflict. That being said, the Harriers are doing excellent work. The Dutch F16s are up north right now (ISAF). With JDAMs etc bombs can be dropped accurately by virtually any plane in support of troops on the ground. B52s do CAS (in a matter of speaking).
AHs are also great enablers, although the enemy can try to shoot back. I like having both around (AHs and CAS).
If we were going to do this it would have to be something like the Invincible.
FTSO,
If we are sending troops somewhere where they will not be opposed then lets just fly them in and use commercial shipping for the kit.
I'm not talking about storming Juno Beach here, but the middle of the FSO can get pretty hairy and relying on Seakings with door gunners for airsupport is not my idea of a good time.
Cheers,
2B
With regards to your question, I'd offer up the A-10 as the gold standard when it comes to resolving conflict. That being said, the Harriers are doing excellent work. The Dutch F16s are up north right now (ISAF). With JDAMs etc bombs can be dropped accurately by virtually any plane in support of troops on the ground. B52s do CAS (in a matter of speaking).
AHs are also great enablers, although the enemy can try to shoot back. I like having both around (AHs and CAS).
If we were going to do this it would have to be something like the Invincible.
FTSO,
If we are sending troops somewhere where they will not be opposed then lets just fly them in and use commercial shipping for the kit.
I'm not talking about storming Juno Beach here, but the middle of the FSO can get pretty hairy and relying on Seakings with door gunners for airsupport is not my idea of a good time.
Cheers,
2B
- Reaction score
- 16,310
- Points
- 1,010
Nor mine...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Don't forget many nations have an amphib capability with no fixed wing support of any sort and they seem to be managing just fine with out it.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
An amazing thread fit for the fantasy forum. Canada cannot afford an aircraft carrier. A USN carrier battle group is a very expensive proposition not only to build but to keep at sea. A modern US carrier now costs in the area of $5 billion plus the cost of the 85 ac on board. The money would be better spent modernizing the CF land,sea and air forces.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Agreed Toma....
- Reaction score
- 7,937
- Points
- 1,160
Also agreed Tomahawk6 -
But there is a difference between a CVN battle group purchased now - an impossibility - and landing 6x F35-Bs on something like the LHA Tarawa or Invincible/Ocean/Principe de Asturias/BPE or some other BHS capable of landing CH-47s, in 2025.
But there is a difference between a CVN battle group purchased now - an impossibility - and landing 6x F35-Bs on something like the LHA Tarawa or Invincible/Ocean/Principe de Asturias/BPE or some other BHS capable of landing CH-47s, in 2025.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Do we want to put in the extra cost of making a flight deck VSTOL aircraft capable and in esence make it even less likely we will be able to field an LPD/LHA due to said added costs?
- Reaction score
- 7,937
- Points
- 1,160
Why not? "We" put troop vehicle tranport into the AORs and made it less likely that they would be acquired. "We" also put ice-resistance specs into the JSS increasing the cost. "We" IIRC also put LCAC and V22 compatibility into the specs, increasing the cost as well.
I could also add that Canadian Frigates and Destroyers were also "upgraded" to handle Medium helicopters when everybody else was only flying Utilities like the Lynx and the Sea Sprite. The question is what is the marginal cost to add capabilities to planned assets.
HMS Ocean was built on a 1993 fixed price contract of 143.9 MUKP, about 300 MCAD in 1993 dollars. Perhaps 500 MCAD now. F35s, support and crews are under consideration now. This would be just another basing option if the F35s were selected to replace the CF-18s.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ocean.htm
I could also add that Canadian Frigates and Destroyers were also "upgraded" to handle Medium helicopters when everybody else was only flying Utilities like the Lynx and the Sea Sprite. The question is what is the marginal cost to add capabilities to planned assets.
HMS Ocean was built on a 1993 fixed price contract of 143.9 MUKP, about 300 MCAD in 1993 dollars. Perhaps 500 MCAD now. F35s, support and crews are under consideration now. This would be just another basing option if the F35s were selected to replace the CF-18s.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ocean.htm
