F-35 and Canadian Navy

[karl28]

Inch  thanks for the heads up like I stated in the above I am out of my lane on this topic but the Navy is something that I always find interesting

 

[NCRCrow]

35 year old destroyers...40 year old sea kings............................

training cycles, procurement, bidding......another 20 years

I thought I saw a Cyclone the other day.....LOL

 

[munky99999]

Actually, I thought Top Gun was an excellent documentary on the mating practices of US Navy aviators...

Well still. Even if top gun is outdated, the USA still has what 10 Nimitz carriers around. and about. 2500 air-wing each therefore as of TODAY, there is A LOT of people still choosing to stay on the carriers and run the aircraft systems and etc. If the life style is so bad, I’m guessing there are people around who are silly enough to do it. Also carriers must be worth the money to run once purchased and manned. Hell I’m not aware of what that French amphibious carrier uses as fuel. But Canada is known for nuclear power. Nice CANDU reactor would be pretty good.

 

[Inch]

I thought I saw a Cyclone the other day.....LOL

BS!  ;D

Well still. Even if top gun is outdated, the USA still has what 10 Nimitz carriers around. and about. 2500 air-wing each therefore as of TODAY, there is A LOT of people still choosing to stay on the carriers and run the aircraft systems and etc. If the life style is so bad, I’m guessing there are people around who are silly enough to do it. Also carriers must be worth the money to run once purchased and manned. Hell I’m not aware of what that French amphibious carrier uses as fuel. But Canada is known for nuclear power. Nice CANDU reactor would be pretty good.

Oh, I get it, we're playing the numbers game. Well compare the 3200 that sail the ship for the air wing. I guess being a sailor is better than being an aviator, let alone the other hundred+ ships the USN has. There's almost 6 times the number of enlisted members as compared to officers in the USN and all USN pilots are officers, so I guess being enlisted is a better lifestyle. 

 

[Sheerin]

Still the question that begs an answer is where are you going to get
a) the money for a major capital investment for a carrier,
b) the capital for the airwing,
c) the aviators for said airwing,
d) how are you going to train the crew for carrier operations,
e) where are you going to get the crew for the carrier,
f) what ships are you going to use for her escort,
g) will they be permanently tied to the carrier
h) which coast are you going to put the carrier
i) are you going to have to cannibalize the other coast to provide escorts for the carrier
j) and most importantly, why does Canada need a carrier at this time?

 

[FSTO]

Still the question that begs an answer is where are you going to get
a) the money for a major capital investment for a carrier,
b) the capital for the airwing,
c) the aviators for said airwing,
d) how are you going to train the crew for carrier operations,
e) where are you going to get the crew for the carrier,
f) what ships are you going to use for her escort,
g) will they be permanently tied to the carrier
h) which coast are you going to put the carrier
i) are you going to have to cannibalize the other coast to provide escorts for the carrier
j) and most importantly, why does Canada need a carrier at this time?

Alright, I don't think that anyone here is advocating that we procure a Nimitz class carrier. This is the same dis-information that the Liberals used in the 04 election. What I think the originator of this thread was proposing that if we decide to get the amphib that Gen Hillier is talking about, would it be feasible to put F-35 STVOL fighters on here if the ship had a complete full length flight-deck vice one located on the stern.

 

[Sheerin]

It was more directed at munky, I wa skinda curious to see what his/her response would after the top gun comment

>

on a serious note, i do find myself wondering why exactly does Canada need a carrier?  I've read the arguments for the BHS and i've been convinced, but I got the impression from the previous comments, specifically from Munky that we were talking about more than a BHS....

Also i'm wondering, if we ever did field a BHS, what would it do the rest of the fleet?  wouldn't most of the ships be allocated to their escort groups?  Would they be available for other missions?  These questions may sound stupid, but remember I'm just another dumb civie

 

[FSTO]

It was more directed at munky, I wa skinda curious to see what his/her response would after the top gun comment

>

on a serious note, i do find myself wondering why exactly does Canada need a carrier?  I've read the arguments for the BHS and i've been convinced, but I got the impression from the previous comments, specifically from Munky that we were talking about more than a BHS....

Also i'm wondering, if we ever did field a BHS, what would it do the rest of the fleet?  wouldn't most of the ships be allocated to their escort groups?  Would they be available for other missions?  These questions may sound stupid, but remember I'm just another dumb civie

One thing if we ever find a BHS in the field then our Navigator training at VENTURE has real gone to the dogs.

As for escorts, our ships go on their own to trouble spots all the time, cripes we even sent the PROTECTEUR to Timor (where there was a credible SSK threat from Indonesia) all by herself. Once there our coalition partners provided the escorts.
We do risk assessments all the time and we would manage.

 

[Sheerin]

hmm, colour me embarrassed for typing something that stupid lol (take note this is what happens when you don't drink enough coffee!!)

But is it safe to assume that our allies will always be there to assist with escort duties?  Would other national security interests be compromised if we used most of the fleet for escort duties?  And along those lines, what would be the minimum number of escorts needed for a LPD or LPH?  Would a fleet of 15 major warships be enough to protect the BHS?

 

[munky99999]

Oh, I get it, we're playing the numbers game. Well compare the 3200 that sail the ship for the air wing. I guess being a sailor is better than being an aviator, let alone the other hundred+ ships the USN has. There's almost 6 times the number of enlisted members as compared to officers in the USN and all USN pilots are officers, so I guess being enlisted is a better lifestyle.

Where did i state that the amount of naval pilots make any difference? I’m simply stating that there MUST be at least a handful of those naval aviators who LIKE their life on the carrier. That alone defeats the original argument that pilots don’t want to live on a carrier and prefer their 4star hotels.

which coast are you going to put the carrier
and most importantly, why does Canada need a carrier at this time?

These really are the only 2 valid arguements. Which coast? who knows? I’m not suggesting a carrier for coast guard duty. As for why does Canada need a carrier? Why does anyone need a carrier? Why does anyone need any military?

Alright, I don't think that anyone here is advocating that we procure a Nimitz class carrier. This is the same dis-information that the Liberals used in the 04 election. What I think the originator of this thread was proposing that if we decide to get the amphib that Gen Hillier is talking about, would it be feasible to put F-35 STVOL fighters on here if the ship had a complete full length flight-deck vice one located on the stern.

Well I don’t know anything about the liberals and the election. But I’m suggesting a very cheap small amphibious carrier with helicopters and vertical take-off f-35b planes. The f-35 planes we will likely be buying anyway, helicopters we have, and the carrier is really the only thing you need to invest in. As for personnel, I’m betting it could be done.Hell, one might argue that purchasing a carrier might indeed be something that would have people looking to recruit to serve on the carrier or just the news of purchasing a carrier might be a good advertising thing to get people to recruit. An amphibious carrier would hold every kind of forces. Navy obviously, army for the amphibious part, and air for the planes and helicopters.

I've read the arguments for the BHS and i've been convinced, but I got the impression from the previous comments, specifically from Munky that we were talking about more than a BHS....
Also i'm wondering, if we ever did field a BHS, what would it do the rest of the fleet?  wouldn't most of the ships be allocated to their escort groups?  Would they be available for other missions?

I was thinking more of a small carrier with no launching ability. Much like what Army matters post in the first page. I don’t really know what BHS is. As for who will escort it??? We often are found escorting American Nimitz class carriers and back in the 1960s we had a carrier of our own which we ran well enough. Your arguments are simply saying that we just cant run a carrier, but the difference is that we have already.

But is it safe to assume that our allies will always be there to assist with escort duties?  Would other national security interests be compromised if we used most of the fleet for escort duties?  And along those lines, what would be the minimum number of escorts needed for a LPD or LPH?  Would a fleet of 15 major warships be enough to protect the BHS?

Well as far as I can tell. A carrier is usually escorted by 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 1 frigate, 1 sub, and supply. Now I’m told that this battle group is usually way more than a carrier needs. Just the F-35b planes would do devastating damage to any threat coming towards a carrier even beyond that, the carrier usually has phalanx guns and seasparrow launchers. The only thing you really need to cover is sub attacks and such. So 1 frigate, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer would be enough. Which wouldn’t hurt our navy as much as you suggest.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So now you are suggesting we get crusiers as well?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Here's how I see it....

If we're going to buy an LPD, why not buy an LHD that can carry a significant number of CH-47's.

If we're going to buy an LHD that can carry a significant number of CH-47's, why not ensure it has the capability to deploy F-35B's should we decide to add that operational capability down the road.

Bottom Line:  Build the ability to upgrade into the original design so in 10-years we aren't kicking ourselves saying "if only...." (as with the current CPF's inability to now upgrade to APAR).


Matthew. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

Matthew: as the Brits have also raised the bar of requirements to replace the Invincible class, they are ending up with drawings and no replacement ships. They ought to do their proof of concept, pick a practical design and quickly get on with it or it will never happen. The economy is going to eventually go into the crap-tank, and with that the defence budget for capital equipment will be a floater. 

 

[munky99999]

So now you are suggesting we get crusiers as well?

No. Though I’d love to see a Canadian contractor design a new BB, a modern BB would be insane. 20-35 inch guns, sea sparrows, phalanx, etc wowzers. Nuclear powerplant. Canada could never build nor commission such a beast. USA could obviously.

One thing I’d really like to see happen is an air force airport built in southern Ontario. That way air cadets could have something closer to Windsor to go to. As far as I know. If air cadets in my area want to do anything other then a classroom they need to go for at least a 6 hour drive. Building an airport in this area would allow for air reserves in Windsor and air cadets. Plus obviously regular air force. Which could in turn create more recruiting. YAaY

 

[George Wallace]

One thing I’d really like to see happen is an air force airport built in southern Ontario. That way air cadets could have something closer to Windsor to go to. As far as I know. If air cadets in my area want to do anything other then a classroom they need to go for at least a 6 hour drive. Building an airport in this area would allow for air reserves in Windsor and air cadets. Plus obviously regular air force. Which could in turn create more recruiting. YAaY

Um?  Isn't Trenton in Southern Ontario?


Good thing you don't live in Tuktyuktuk.

 

[Inch]

I was thinking more of a small carrier with no launching ability. Much like what Army matters post in the first page. I don’t really know what BHS is. As for who will escort it??? We often are found escorting American Nimitz class carriers and back in the 1960s we had a carrier of our own which we ran well enough. Your arguments are simply saying that we just cant run a carrier, but the difference is that we have already.

I hate to break it to you, but the world is a very different place than it was in the 60s. The navy is a shadow of what it used to be, in 1963 the RCN consisted of 1 Carrier (the Bonnie), 18 Destroyer Escorts, 8 Tribal Class Destroyers, 17 Frigates, 10 Minesweepers, 4 Submarines, 1 AOR, and 4 Sqns of aircraft. Now we have 3 Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 12 MCDVs, 3 Subs and 2 Sqns of Sea Kings.

Well as far as I can tell. A carrier is usually escorted by 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 1 frigate, 1 sub, and supply. Now I’m told that this battle group is usually way more than a carrier needs. Just the F-35b planes would do devastating damage to any threat coming towards a carrier even beyond that, the carrier usually has phalanx guns and seasparrow launchers. The only thing you really need to cover is sub attacks and such. So 1 frigate, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer would be enough. Which wouldn’t hurt our navy as much as you suggest.

Ah yes, because no air launched anti ship missile is ever launched outside the 6 or so mile range of the Sea Sparrow or the close in range of the Close-In Weapons System (CIWS aka Phalanx). Not to mention the over the horizon capability of sea launched weapons, ie Harpoon.

One thing I'd really like to see happen is an air force airport built in southern Ontario. That way air cadets could have something closer to Windsor to go to. As far as I know. If air cadets in my area want to do anything other then a classroom they need to go for at least a 6 hour drive. Building an airport in this area would allow for air reserves in Windsor and air cadets. Plus obviously regular air force. Which could in turn create more recruiting. YAaY

Now that's classic, establishing a Wing so that Air Cadets don't have as far to travel.  :

 

[karl28]

Um?  Isn't Trenton in Southern Ontario?   

I know your just having fun with the above quesion with that last statement but to add some sarcasm it even host a large air cadet camp here every summer lol  But I guess that must be so difficult for munky99999  to travel to once a year LOL  ;D

 

[Sheerin]

Though I’d love to see a Canadian contractor design a new BB, a modern BB would be insane. 20-35 inch guns, sea sparrows, phalanx, etc wowzers. Nuclear powerplant.

Again, why would Canada need a BB? 
Lets give you a scenario, you've become the MND (though whatever post you get will probably be becuase of nepotism) how are you going to explain to a) the cabinet, b) the house of commons and c) the public at large the reasons for you spending how many untold billions on a battleship (presumably fleet as having just one doesn't make that much sense) and a fleet of carriers (again one doesn't make that much sense either) and of course the escorts to go along with it?  Oh and along those lines how would you explain it to the rest of the members of the CF who presumably just got pink slips becuase you are unable to pay their salaries becuase of the money that is being dumped into the navy.

I also don't buy your argument that becuase the Canadian navy did something in the 60s that they're able to do as well today.  As Inch pointed out the navy its self is dramatically different now than it was then, as is, presumably, the threats that face capital warships like carriers and BBs that you seem to want.  Also, are there any saliors currently serving in the navy who were around when the Bonnie was last in service?  Even if they are it doesn't mean the skillset is still there.  Same goes for the aviators. 

And BHS is short for Big Honking Ship... rick hillier used this term while discussing a new class of ship he'd like to see the navy have, like an LPH.

 

[Armymatters]

Here's how I see it....

If we're going to buy an LPD, why not buy an LHD that can carry a significant number of CH-47's.

If we're going to buy an LHD that can carry a significant number of CH-47's, why not ensure it has the capability to deploy F-35B's should we decide to add that operational capability down the road.

Bottom Line:  Build the ability to upgrade into the original design so in 10-years we aren't kicking ourselves saying "if only...." (as with the current CPF's inability to now upgrade to APAR).


Matthew. 

We are going to be talking about a BIG ship if it has to carry and operate a significant number of Chinook's... most ships of the LHD size can only operate a handful, as simply put it, a Chinook is not designed for shipboard operations (lacks folding rotor blades). I read  about the story of a Chinook named Bravo November that was sent in 1982 to fight in the Falklands War. The story mentioned how the Chinook was not designed for shipboard stowage, as to get the Chinooks to fit on the ship for stowage, they were forced to take off the rotor blades, and when it was time to get the Chinook's ready, they had to re-attach the rotor blades using a forklift, on a pitching, heaving deck, and that they were extremely lucky that they were to get the rotor blades on without having someone's fingers cut off because he was guiding the rotor blades in, and was preparing to drop the securing bolt in.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

: a battleship now? Please....what next a dreadnought?? How about a seaplane carrier for good measure.