For those who want to read about the Conservative's Military Plan....

[Cdn Blackshirt]

See Link to their new policy document:   http://www.conservative.ca/platform/e.pdf

Check pages 38-39....

The acquisitions list shows you that they've definitely done their homework.


Cheers all,



Matthew.  

 

[nULL]

They said nothing about the return of the CAR.

 

[rcr]

They said nothing about the return of the CAR.

I have contacted my Conservative MP regarding that.  I haven't heard anything back yet but I only contacted them last week.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I must admit I roll my eyes when I read about the hybrid helicopter carriers...I'd like to see the navy get the JSS project in the water before they even think of anything as outlanding as carriers. The frigates need to be upgraded soon and the kinks need to be worked out the Upholders deperately. Not to mention the 280s need replacement very soon. Its a good report but the carriers are pure fantasy. 

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The old Alliance defense policy mentioned bringing back the CAR.  I was against it then, and I am still against it as a short term policy.  There are just too many things that take priority over bringing back the Airborne.  While this may upset a whole bunch of people, if you honestly sit down and prioritise everything that has to be done to fis the Forces, bringing back the CAR would most likely be down a few items on your list of priorities as well.

I actually asked Stephen Harper about the carriers.  Apparently, he was told that after a firm committment, it would take 12-15 years to design, contract out and build before they would be available for duty.  That's an awful long time, and leaves lots of time to come up with funding, and to build the personnel strength of the Navy up enough to man the things.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I actually asked Stephen Harper about the carriers.   Apparently, he was told that after a firm commitment, it would take 12-15 years to design, contract out and build before they would be available for duty.   That's an awful long time, and leaves lots of time to come up with funding, and to build the personnel strength of the Navy up enough to man the things

Unfortunately its not that easy...doctrine has to be developed around the carriers, procedures have to established using carriers. A whole new training program for enlisted and officers would have to be established for existing and future members of the navy and air force. Trainers would have to be developed, tested, bought and implemented before we could safely sail one. Additional support and escort ships would have to be purchased to support the carrier. You will have to figure that one JSS would be permanently attached to the carrier and her escort group. Need I go on? Its a very bad idea especially when we need so much more.

Oh I also forgot...some might suggest exchanges with other navies and while that will workfor small numbers thats just it only small numbers could gain experience.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Well, even with our crowd in NDHQ, we just might be able to come up with a plan that is implementable before 15 years are up!

It's not as if we have never had, or operated with carriers.  Doctrine and procedures are well established, and the Canadian Navy has operated with such groups before, both British and American. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Lance trust me I have been doing this for 10 years and when we adopt something new in the navy or reinvent the wheel we change things. When the 280s got the SM-2 missiles given us an area defence capability we learned what we could from the others that have medium and long range SAM and developed our own methods. Roughly after 10 yrs we are becoming some what proficient at it. Mine warfare which was all but dead in the CF for decades is something we are relearning as well when we built the MCDVs. Comparing helo carriers to true carriers is like comparing apples to oranges. Different procedures, tactics, operations are needed. The army is going through the same thing with the MGS, you are trying to make it work. If we get the carriers we will get them to work but its something we really don't want nor need.

 

[Slim]

Hey all

I must say that, even though I agree with Ex-Dragoon ( we have previously discussed this very subject via PM) I am still going to "take the chance" and vote for the PC's when the big day comes around. I would love for the government to DO SOMETHING for the CF.

By the way, bring the CAR back may be low on the priority list in terms pf practicality but it would be an incredible morale boost for the CF and, possibly, the country at large.

My 2 cents

Slim

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm actually a fan of the carrier idea.

What I hated was the money being flushed on CADRE.   My foresight tells me that a majority of operations we will be entering into over the next 20 years we willl not face any real threat of attack by airpower.   In those cases where there actually is an enemy and they have an air force, it is unrealistic to believe we would be deploying without proper air cover as provided by an ally (most likely the USA, but possibly Britain).

Ergo, if the need based on future roles is moot, the equipment should be eliminated (even if it is a Navy pet project).

That brings me to the where I think the world will need us in upcoming years and I see the model of Afghanistan, Somalia and Rwanda being the template for future threats.  

That requires:
1)   Boots on the ground with the best vehicles, weapons and body armour possible
2)   The ability to unilaterally deploy them, support them and protect them from projected threats

In short, for foreign operations the other forces should be modified to support the Army.

Equipment Purchases Required:

Navy
1)   Fast Transport Ships with amphibious and Ro-Ro capabilities (see LPD-17)
2)   Helicopter carriers with amphibious landing capabilities (modelled directly on the US Marines)
3)   VTOL Surveillance UAV for Surveillance and Targetting
4)   Transport Helicopters to get men & supplies where they need to go
5)   Refit Halifax-class with top-notch defensive suite as well as maximum shore-battery capability.

Air Force
1)   Finish the damned CF-18 upgrade project!!!
2)   Accept the fact that the Hercules cannot move our Land Forces and transition to a mix of C-17's (preferably stretched) and C-27J Spartans (Tactical Supply)
3)   Acquire Global Hawk for Strategic Intelligence Gathering of the Theatre
4)   Acquire Predator B for round-the-clock Tactical Surveillance (protection) of all deployed ground forces

Bottom Line:   Although perceived as infeasible by some, if we are to play a significant role on the ground around the world, the logistics support of Helicopter Carriers in my opinion is absolutely essential.

Thoughts welcome....

Cheers,


Matthew.  

 

[devil39]

Lance trust me I have been doing this for 10 years and when we adopt something new in the navy or reinvent the wheel we change things. When the 280s got the SM-2 missiles given us an area defence capability we learned what we could from the others that have medium and long range SAM and developed our own methods. Roughly after 10 yrs we are becoming some what proficient at it. Mine warfare which was all but dead in the CF for decades is something we are relearning as well when we built the MCDVs. Comparing helo carriers to true carriers is like comparing apples to oranges. Different procedures, tactics, operations are needed. The army is going through the same thing with the MGS, you are trying to make it work. If we get the carriers we will get them to work but its something we really don't want nor need.

Would we want some Strategic Sea Lift capabilty, perhaps a BG   or two worth?   A capability to launch a few helos (or maybe a dozen)   from it?  

As an Army guy I certainly would.   Deployments would be far more predictable and secure.   NEO would be far simpler.  

Doctrine in the Army at times tends to get formalized long after we have been practicing and employing TTPs.   New equipment should not be a threat, but a welcome challenge.   I will gladly employ your Strat Sea Lift and write your doctrine if you do not wish to.   : )

 

[Slim]

The government needs to go, hat in hand, to the yanks and buy some of their M1 Abrams! I am quite sure we would get a good deal... and to my way of thinking the face of war has not changed enough to justify getting rid of a heavy offensive weapon like the MBT! As for the rest...Its too bad the government doesn't listen to (or read) this thread...Some good ideas here!

Slim

 

[Kirkhill]

Ex-Dragoon

Not picking a fight here.  But.  Does the navy still train for convoy escort duties? Because if so wouldn't it be prepared to transport a troopship from Canada's shores to a foreign shore?

I get the impression that the vessels labelled by the Liberals as "aircraft carriers" are intended by the Conservatives as troop carriers with a flat deck from which helicopters can fly.  They would not be part of a task force's fighting strength, not really a navy ship at all really.  Did taking the Protector to Somalia and parking her there require a doctrinal change?

I am just a bit confused here.

The "carriers" that are being talked about here are depicted as through deck flat-tops but I think that something like the LPD-17s would do the job just as well. As for crewing I don't know anything about naval vessel crewing requirements but Royal Fleet Auxilliary vessels and civil vessels of larger size only seem to need 30-50? people for shiphandling duties.

So if we assume that the primary role of the types of vessels we are talking about here is troop/equipment transport is it necessary to carry a full complement of naval warfare specialists all the time?  What size of crew did the GTS Katie carry?

Perhaps there is a role for naval reservists in manning these vessels which I think could in all likelihood spend a good portion of their life at dock-side. (Bad news - underutilized capital (like a fire-engine?)  Good news - very long service life with care)

I note also that the Americans are reconfiguring their requirements and intend to cancel 4 LPD-17s that have already got slip space booked.  They are intending to replace them with 4 expanded Wasp Carriers that can carry an air wing of up to 30? JSFs plus helicopters.

Would there be merit in buying a couple/all of the Bare-Bones hulls and fitting 3 out for the JSS role and one for the Transport/Shore Service Support/Shore Command role?

Again, just to clarify, as I understand it these wouldn't be fighting vessels they would be a combination of the GTS Katie and the Provider as employed of Somalia,but with a flat top.

The navy might be expected to supply ships-handling crew, escort to the theatre of operations, a guard vessel in theatre and maybe some small-boats personnel to handle ship-to-shore operations as well as close-in security personnel.

Does such a vessel really require a large crew and a doctrinal change?

Just asking

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Hey Kirkhill,

Where did you hear about the LPD-17 cancellations?

If that is true, that could be a heck of gift landing in our laps. 

Any link you've got would be great....

Thanks in advance,



Matthew. 

 

[AmmoTech90]

It is interesting to note the document doesn't actually say helicopter carriers.   It says hybrid carriers for helicopters and strategic lift.   This could be something along the lines of the Dutch Rotterdam ships.   These can carry a battalion of infantry, six helos (with landing spots for two), docks for landing craft, and the capacity for 170 APCs or 33 MBTs, and a hospital.   This seems to be somewhat in line with new   Joint Support Ships the navy is looking at, with the exception of the refuelling capability/cargo.
So, call me cynical but I see a political party that seems to be supporting new capablities but when elected they can just let an existing program continue and still fulfill a campaign promise.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Just going off on another tangent for a mo.
I have often wondered why have we not done like the Yank's and Brit's.(its cheap)
The Brits have the R.F.A. which is the Royal Fleet Auxiliary which is a fleet of ship's manned by Merchant Seaman and the Yank's have the ?Ready Command? which is also manned by Merchant Seaman and the both sail refueler's,supply ship's which do at time's go on Fleet Ex's.

If the Government put it's mind to it we could have a ship in the water with in 3yrs and the next one 2yrs later.
I don't know how many White Paper's have been put out since I've been in but I'm sick and tired of hearing about them.

 

[Spr.Earl]

"I have always believed that success would be the inevitable result if the two services, the army and the navy, had fair play, and if we sent the right man to fill the right place."

Sir Henry Austen Layard, Speech in British Parliament, Jan. 15, 1855.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Cdn Blackshirt said:
What I hated was the money being flushed on CADRE.  My foresight tells me that a
majority of operations we will be entering into over the next 20 years we Will not face any real threat of attack by airpower.  In those cases where there actually is an enemy and they have an air force, it is unrealistic to believe we would be deploying without proper air cover as provided by an ally (most likely the USA, but possibly Britain).
CADRE has been revamped so many times thats why is got so expensive. It started as a simple destroyer with Sm2s with C4I capability so a destroyer that could do it all. Its no wonder it was never implemented. Changes have been made so hopefully the new version will see itself to be built. Can you guarantee that beyond a fraction of a doubt we won't need a ship with long range air defence capability and we can always rely on our allies to provide air defence? Almost sounds like the army and the MGS debate doesn't it? liken it to those terms and you will see why

5)  Refit Halifax-class with top-notch defensive suite as well as maximum shore-battery capability.
What did you have in mind....all the advantages that the CPFs enjoy would be pretty much lost or diminished if we get the hull plug. Agreed the Halifax class needs to be upgraded an updated but its an escort vessel. If you want shore support then you will have to wait for whatever replaces the 280s.

Kirkhill said:
Not picking a fight here.  But.  Does the navy still train for convoy escort duties? Because if so wouldn't it be prepared to transport a troopship from Canada's shores to a foreign shore?
No worries I know you are not. The last big convoy exercise I believe was in the mid 80s. It costs money for ship owners to pull their ships off their jobs just so the navy can practice. it happens on a very limited scale. We did escort ships through the Straits of Hormuz and other enclosed areas and do extensive wargaming but thats pretty much it. After World War1 the navies lost the skill set for convoy escort and did not regain it until well into World War 2. Protection of AORs, carriers, amphibs is something we have been doing a lot lately.

I get the impression that the vessels labelled by the Liberals as "aircraft carriers" are intended by the Conservatives as troop carriers with a flat deck from which helicopters can fly.  They would not be part of a task force's fighting strength, not really a navy ship at all really.  Did taking the Protector to Somalia and parking her there require a doctrinal change?
God only knows what the Conservatives intend for the military. How would they not be a navy ship at all? Last I checked anything that flys the Ensign is a Canadian Navy ship. Just because its not a frigate, destroyer, carrier etc does the distinction stop there? I don't think so! You say that to a USN sailor off the USS Boxer and tell him he is not really on a navy ship and I bet you would get a fat lip for your troubles.

So if we assume that the primary role of the types of vessels we are talking about here is troop/equipment transport is it necessary to carry a full complement of naval warfare specialists all the time?  What size of crew did the GTS Katie carry?
Ever see an ops room on an amphib? If you have you will know that they have their "full complement of naval warfare specialist" Otherwise who is going to detect and classify your threats? Who will man your defensive systems and your weapon systems? Who will assist in navigation? IIRC GTS Katie carried 9 or 11. I will double check that for you.

Perhaps there is a role for naval reservists in manning these vessels which I think could in all likelihood spend a good portion of their life at dock-side.
Considering they have a hard enough time manning the MCDVs how are you going to get them to man this?

Would there be merit in buying a couple/all of the Bare-Bones hulls and fitting 3 out for the JSS role and one for the Transport/Shore Service Support/Shore Command role?
Always an option I suppose but I think both the army and navy feels the JSS is optimal for both needs. Its not a perfect set up but its the best compromise.

AmmoTech90 said:
It is interesting to note the document doesn't actually say helicopter carriers.  It says hybrid carriers for helicopters and strategic lift.  This could be something along the lines of the Dutch Rotterdam ships.....This seems to be somewhat in line with new  Joint Support Ships the navy is looking at, with the exception of the refuelling capability/cargo.
Nice ships but we want to be able to refuel and resupply. Why would we get something that cannot do that role?

Spr Earl said:
I have often wondered why have we not done like the Yank's and Brit's.(its cheap)
The Brits have the R.F.A. which is the Royal Fleet Auxiliary which is a fleet of ship's manned by Merchant Seaman and the Yank's have the ?Ready Command? which is also manned by Merchant Seaman and the both sail refueler's,supply ship's which do at time's go on Fleet Ex's.
i think the answer to that is the fees the CF would have to pay out to the unions. You would know about that more.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw040504_1_n.shtml

Here's the link you were asking about Blackshirt.  This is the shortened version.  I read the complete article at the library.  Could be interesting right enough.

Ex-Dragoon

Fair enough on the Ops Centre but could not Naval Ops be conducted from the Ops room of the CADRE destroyers (you see I still agree we need them) while the Shore Ops are conducted from the Troop Carrier.  As I understand it that is the intention with the JSS requirement to embark a Battle Group/National Command Element.

Admittedly the Americans do integrate many activities on board one vessel for coordination but they also have a high degree of redundancy with many ops rooms in the group.  This is undoubtedly necessary when staging an amphibious assault on a contested shore.

But suppose we assume that we are not going to be doing that.  That the reason we are going to deploy a battlegroup is to control militias with rifles and rpgs and support a local police force.  The rationale for putting the command and logistic support at sea is to put those elements OUT of harms way - then we don't have to be worried about frustrated soldiers with inadequate amounts of barbed wire trying to keep axles and meals from guys in flip-flops. 

In other words the platform (the sea base to use the upcoming jargon) would be deployed in a low threat environment.

If the government wanted to employ the capability in a high-threat environment then it could join the Dutch and the Spanish and possibly the Australians, as well as second echelon Brit and American forces. 

Fair enough about the reserves.  Could the reserves handle a mission like training at their home bases to handle containerized weapons systems that could be stuck onto unarmed vessels?


As to the comments about the navy ships, I apologize if I offended your profession dignity excessively. ;D Seeing as how I was suggesting a vessel with no guns or missiles on it I didn't think you guys in blue would be interested in crewing her.  But if you want to put guns and missiles on her and run up the White Ensign I am sure many of the types in Green would be immensely grateful.  >


Cheers.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw040504_1_n.shtml

Ex-Dragoon

Fair enough on the Ops Centre but could not Naval Ops be conducted from the Ops room of the CADRE destroyers (you see I still agree we need them) while the Shore Ops are conducted from the Troop Carrier.   As I understand it that is the intention with the JSS requirement to embark a Battle Group/National Command Element.

Admittedly the Americans do integrate many activities on board one vessel for coordination but they also have a high degree of redundancy with many ops rooms in the group.   This is undoubtedly necessary when staging an amphibious assault on a contested shore.

But suppose we assume that we are not going to be doing that.   That the reason we are going to deploy a battlegroup is to control militias with rifles and rpgs and support a local police force.   The rationale for putting the command and logistic support at sea is to put those elements OUT of harms way - then we don't have to be worried about frustrated soldiers with inadequate amounts of barbed wire trying to keep axles and meals from guys in flip-flops.  

In other words the platform (the sea base to use the upcoming jargon) would be deployed in a low threat environment.

If the government wanted to employ the capability in a high-threat environment then it could join the Dutch and the Spanish and possibly the Australians, as well as second echelon Brit and American forces.  

Fair enough about the reserves.   Could the reserves handle a mission like training at their home bases to handle containerized weapons systems that could be stuck onto unarmed vessels?


As to the comments about the navy ships, I apologize if I offended your profession dignity excessively. ;D Seeing as how I was suggesting a vessel with no guns or missiles on it I didn't think you guys in blue would be interested in crewing her.   But if you want to put guns and missiles on her and run up the White Ensign I am sure many of the types in Green would be immensely grateful.   >


Cheers.

Now why would you only rely on one Ops Room do do all that work? You can task a specific ship to do a job with others acting as secondary or teritary platforms. If you shut down an Ops Room one one ship   or more and some sort of damage occurs what then? It is like arming only 1 or 2 guys in your section (or only your best shots). Redundancy in the navy is good, it keeps people alive longer.

I don't see why the Naval Reserves could not do that I thought you were referring to them solely manning the ships.

As long as a ship has the prefix HMCS, USS its part of the that countries navy its a commissioned warship.