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

[AmmoTech90]

Ex-Dragoon,

What I meant by "exception of refuelling/cargo" is that the Rotterdam design is nothing like a Tarawa and does not invoke the idea of a "carrier" but does meet the requirements of the JSS with that exception.  I believe the JSS is planned to be around 29000 tons and the Rotterdam is around 13000.  I'm no naval architect but could this extra 16000 tons add the refuelling/cargo capability?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Could be anything AT90..until we know for sure what the JSS is suppose to do all we can do it imagine. It does stand to reason though that some of that 16000 tons could be for various stores and fuel. I am no naval architech either just been sailing since '94 and have picked up on a bit.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why would I rely on only one Ops Room?

To keep the costs down.

If I can't afford to put an Ops Room in every hull then I would rather have the hull available to perform its primary task without an Ops Room than not have the ability to perform the task at all.

As to Redundancy, in high threat environment send 2 CADREs.  Just like when the job is too big for a section you don't send a bigger section you send a platoon.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Kirkhill what you are asking then is for a ship to sail blind with no way to defend itself or see what threats are out there. No CO would ever sail under those conditions and no navy would either.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think that is the point I was trying to get at when I was asking about convoy escort duties and the GTS Katie.

The Katie had no Ops Room and the tankers you were escorting through the Straits of Hormuz suffered the same situation.  They were sailing blind, with zero situational awareness and reliant totally on you in the CPFs and DDHs to get them where they needed to be.

I don't see the significant difference between escorting a tanker into Bandar Abbas and escorting a troop carrier to a moorage 5 km off Mogadishu. Or perhaps better locations today would be Kinshasa (up the Congo) or Port Sudan.

I am not seeing this as a fighting vessel.  It is a transport vessel, just as a Ro-Ro carrier, Oil tanker, Passenger Liner or Container Vessel taken up from trade would be.

Would it help if I suggested the money shouldn't come from a Navy budget but that a separate Strategic lift budget should be created to fund not only these vessels but also the Strategic Airlift requirement (read C17s)?  Then all oxes could be gored equally.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The GTS Katie is not even an auxillary why would a civillian ship have an operations room? Why would it have EW gear, air/surface search radars, weapons firing panels and communications gear up the wazoo? You can bet those ships had a guy closed up on their radar and if they had sonar you can bet it was pinging looking for mines!

 

[Kirkhill]

Right.  That's why it would need escorting.  It also needs a cleared moorage - which we theoretically can supply with the MCDVs.

But the point is, it transported a large amount of kit (for an excessively long time ) to where the army needed it.  That is all the army is looking for. At least as this civilian sees it.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So let me get this straight you would prefer if the navy lets the army meet its own sealift needs as well as contracting out of fleet replenishment?

 

[Jungle]

Here's the latest piece by Lewis MacKenzie in today's National Post

Projecting force abroad

I've always believed that a nation's obligations abroad are proportional to
its blessings at home. There are millions of oppressed people around the
world who need help and protection from the thugs, goons and dictators who
have flourished since the end of the Cold War. Canada can't help all of
them. But we can help some.
Various decision-makers in Ottawa, including a Senate committee, have
recently suggested that we withdraw from overseas missions for up to 10
years as we rebuild our crippled military. That will not (and should not)
happen. No matter what its political orientation, our government will
understandably want to contribute to just missions abroad no matter what the
state of our military.
Most of our key allies -- including the United States, Britain, Australia,
Spain and Italy -- have conducted at least two defence reviews since our
last effort produced the 1994 Defence White Paper. Ottawa's general
ignorance regarding the state of our Armed Forces is reflected in the
current election campaign.
Consider, for instance, the partisan hype surrounding the Conservatives'
announcement that a Stephen Harper-led government would purchase new "hybrid
carriers" to transport Canadian troops and their equipment to overseas
mission areas in the future. For the past year, a number of distinguished
senior retired officers (most of them were my bosses at one time or the
other) have been working on a proposal that would recommend just such a
purchase. We don't care which political party implements the purchase as
long as it's done as soon as practical, thereby enhancing Canada's ability
to project force abroad.
You can imagine our disappointment when the Prime Minister recently
denounced the Conservative plan to purchase "aircraft carriers" -- an
erroneous charge suggesting a Cold War-type military spending spree that
threatens support for social programs. A hybrid carrier is about as similar
to an aircraft carrier as my Honda scooter is to a Kenmore 18-wheeler, and
the cost relationship is also about the same.
Aircraft carriers have as their primary role the delivery of combat air
power to anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end. Hybrid
carriers carry soldiers and their kit, including their vehicles, medical,
logistic support, command and control facilities -- in other words,
everything that we now dispatch in an untimely and unreliable manner in
chartered merchant ships and rented Ukrainian strategic lift aircraft. They
are several storeys high. And yes, like Mr. Martin's imaginary aircraft
carriers, they do have a flat roof that can accommodate and launch
helicopters (and if we had them, jump jets). However, their primary role is
to get our troops to where they are needed, support them while they are
there and bring them home.
Forget the word "carrier." Let's call them battle group support ships and
move at least one of them to the top of the military's equipment priority
list. They are invaluable for the type of missions Canada will likely be
called on to participate in during the coming years. (The recent
announcement of the future purchase of three joint supply ships is good
news, as they are much needed by our navy for resupply at sea; however they
cannot accommodate the soldiers and all the equipment of an 800-1,000 strong
battle group.) The usual 10-year period for acquiring such large assets
should be dispensed with. We could lease one within the year.
As we improve our military's ability to project force abroad, we should
dispense with the all-too Canadian conceit that what the world needs is
"peacekeepers." Peacekeeping in the classic, Pearsonian sense -- whereby our
troops occupy a piece of territory at the request of local belligerents --
is no longer in much demand. What is needed now are peacemakers with the
weapons and mandate necessary to kill belligerents who don't want us there.
In the vast majority of recent missions -- Afghanistan, especially -- it
would have been negligent to the extreme to send in soldiers trained and
equipped as "peacekeepers." Certainly, I understand the attractiveness of
the touchy-feely term and the desire to inject it into the campaign. Paul
Martin's announcement that he will form a new 5,000-man peacekeeping
brigade, for instance, has a nice ring to it. However, a far better
investment would be to inject those 5,000 extra soldiers into the existing
three brigades that deploy in hostile environments.
As far as new funding for the military goes, I've been adding up the
recently announced sums and congratulate the Prime Minister for pledging
$10-billion in new spending over the next five years compared to the CPC's
pledge of $7-billion. On behalf of our overworked soldiers, I can only hope
that whoever forms the government keeps their promises. It's not a choice
between health care or "aircraft carriers"; it's a choice about what kind of
Canada we want. Mine includes good health care and a modestly sized, light,
lethal and strategically mobile military that can project force abroad. With
real leadership, both are possible.

Basically sounds like what we did with the Bonaventure when the first CDN troops deployed to Cyprus in 1964. This is exactly what the CF need, and we should think about the possibility of purchasing Harriers so we have the option of equipping those Carriers with them when needed.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You think the Conservatives will triple the defence budget? Thats what it would take to get something like this even started plus all the support needed. Just musing here but how seriously would anyone in the army take Admiral Ron Buck if he started coming out with things the army needs to do?

 

[jutes85]

The government needs to go, hat in hand, to the yanks and buy some of their M1 Abrams!

Ahh, Israels Merkava is better.

 

[devil39]

You think the Conservatives will triple the defence budget? Thats what it would take to get something like this even started plus all the support needed. Just musing here but how seriously would anyone in the army take Admiral Ron Buck if he started coming out with things the army needs to do?

I think if the Admiral wasn't suffering a severe case of "cranial-rectal insertion" we would listen to what he had to say.   The future should be "Joint" after all.   The Navy and the Army usually understand that.

How is this going to require the defence budget to triple?  

Can you substantiate this claim with the platform (vessel) costs, possibly prepositioned and floating equipment costs, O & M costs, Navy pers manning costs (PYs), another 12- 36 helo costs?

Over a multi year program this is triple the proposed conservative budget (less inflation) of 20 Billion five years from now?  

 

[Kirkhill]

So let me get this straight you would prefer if the navy lets the army meet its own sealift needs as well as contracting out of fleet replenishment?

No. I must learn to communicate more clearly.

I would like the Forces to buy a hull, a hulk, a motorized barge, a bathtub with an outboard motor....  whatever it takes to get a battlegroup's worth of gear to the theater of operations so that it can be unloaded all at once.

It would be nice if the navy manned it.

Cheers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Lets see devil....
Say 3 Wasp class LHA 341 million USD each>>>>1.023 billion USD
or 3 San Antonio class LPD 245 million USD each>>>735 million USD
16 LCACs 24 million USD each>>>>>384 million USD
40 EH101s 29 million USD each>>> 1.160 billion USD
about 3000 personnel hired on to man and repair>>>> say 100 million
Spare parts and ancillary equipment for above>>>>200 million
Modifications to CFB Esquilmalt and Halifax>>>> 500 million
Training costs (simulators etc)>>>>>1 billion
all the studies NDHQ like to do before any project>>>>> 1 billion
New escorts for these ships (4 air defence destroyers)>>>>6-9 billion
at least 2 additional auxillaries>>>>> 4 billion
Prepositioned vehciles and stores for embarked army units>>>>prob around 600 million
Amphib training for army units>>>>100 million

ADDS up pretty quick doesn't it devil? SO maybe I am not at the 37 billion but I am getting close plus what we are spending now.

 

[Kirkhill]

Quick question for clarification's sake Ex-Dragoon.

Do you think the Army should be operating overseas?

I understand we can get civilian hulls to carry the army in.  But can we get civilian hulls to carry the army out once the bullets start flying?

Cheers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Quick question for clarification's sake Ex-Dragoon.

Do you think the Army should be operating overseas?

I understand we can get civilian hulls to carry the army in.   But can we get civilian hulls to carry the army out once the bullets start flying?

Cheers

Well its the job off all 3 services to represent foreign policy overseas in whatever manner the goverment deems appropriate.
Your last question is very good and illustrates why its better to have sealift under military control rather then under civillian contract.

 

[Slim]

The government needs to go, hat in hand, to the yanks and buy some of their M1 Abrams!

Ahh, Israels Merkava is better.

Yep the Merkava is a good platform and can carry troops.

The Abrams is a good tank, with good armour and the parts are right next door!
So is the BlackHawk/SeaHawk/NightHawk/Stalker!

 

[devil39]

Lets see devil....
Say 3 Wasp class LHA 341 million USD each>>>>1.023 billion USD
or 3 San Antonio class LPD 245 million USD each>>>735 million USD
16 LCACs 24 million USD each>>>>>384 million USD
40 EH101s 29 million USD each>>> 1.160 billion USD
about 3000 personnel hired on to man and repair>>>> say 100 million
Spare parts and ancillary equipment for above>>>>200 million
Modifications to CFB Esquilmalt and Halifax>>>> 500 million
Training costs (simulators etc)>>>>>1 billion
all the studies NDHQ like to do before any project>>>>> 1 billion
New escorts for these ships (4 air defence destroyers)>>>>6-9 billion
at least 2 additional auxillaries>>>>> 4 billion
Prepositioned vehciles and stores for embarked army units>>>>prob around 600 million
Amphib training for army units>>>>100 million

ADDS up pretty quick doesn't it devil? SO maybe I am not at the 37 billion but I am getting close plus what we are spending now.

Ex-Dragoon,

Certainly does add up.   However I'm not certain you can substantiate your claim of a triple defence budget.   Keeping in mind that the Capital acquisition costs are one time (not an annual cost unlike O&M), and the total is spread over many years, I see no requirement for triple the defence budget.  

20 Billion annually adjusted for inflation, should suffice I would think.   Then again I am an Infantryman and not in the business of strategic level business planning.

Regardless I do get your point.   It will cost money.  

It might also change a certain amount of your operational focus.   Perhaps the Navy may balk at committing a significant portion of their manpower and effort to facilitating Army centric activities.   Gotta love "Joint" Ops.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

To ex-dragoon,

First in response to your question about upgunning the Halifax to accommodate a
shore battery capability, in retrospect I don't think it's worthwhile.   The main gun in
place now is used as part of the self-defence suite, so why mess with it.

RE:   An Acquisition Plan - It looks like I do different math than you....

Acquisition Costs (spread over procurement period)
1 Wasp class LHA 341 million USD each>>>>>>>>>341 million USD
12 JSF VTOL 50 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>>600 million USD
3 San Antonio class LPD-17's 245 million USD each>>>735 million USD
16 LCACs 24 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>384 million USD
40 EH101s 29 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1,160 million USD
3 Small AOR's - 100 million USD each >>>>>>>>>>>300 million USD
3 Medium Ro-Ro's - 125 million USD each>>>>>>>>>375 million USD
12 Halifax Upgrades - 100 million USD each>>>>>>1,200 million USD
Spare parts and ancillary equipment for above>>>>>200 million USD
Modifications to CFB Esquilmalt and Halifax>>>>>>> 500 million USD
Training Simulators etc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>300 million USD
NDHQ Planning and Administration>>>>>>>>>>>>500 million USD
_________________________________________________________
Total Procurment Costs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>6595 million USD

Amortize over 6 year procurement plan and you're at $1750million CAD/yr.

Additional Annual Operating Costs
4000 personnel hired on to man and repair>>>>>> 200 million per year
Annual Training and Oparational Costs>>>>>>>>>500 million per year
____________________________________________________________
Total Annual Operating Costs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>700 million per year

In short, you could have all that for an average Military Budget Increase
of less than $2.5 billion per year.

That seems like a hell of a return on investment considering what we're unable
to do with $11 billion per year now.

Of note, if anyone wants to change up the mix and suggest alternative battle
groups, go for it.

Cheers all,



Matthew.    

P.S.   Kirkhill - thanks for posting that link....very cool.    

 

[DJL]

I'm new, and because of that, I don't want to step on any toes, but I think both  ex-dragoon and Cdn Blackshirt numbers are slight skewed so I'll add my two "bits" to the topic:

Say 3 Wasp class LHA 341 million USD each>>>>1.023 billion USD

Just one WASP is in the ball park of over Three Billion (not million) per. So for three WASP LHDs, we would be looking at over twelve Billion dollars......not including cup holders.

12 JSF VTOL 50 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>>600 million USD

I'm quite sure that the Kippers are expecting to be paying upwards of 115 million per F-35B. (this total factors in spares, training aids, dev cots etc)

3 San Antonio class LPD-17's 245 million USD each>>>735 million USD

The USN is paying over 800 million per ship, which would translate into over a Billion Cdn.

16 LCACs 24 million USD each>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>384 million USD

I'm quite sure that new LCACs are not being produced, so we would have to perhaps look into playing a part with the USMC replacement program, regardless, that going to cost big bucks

As for the rest of the costs, all one can do leads to conjecture.

Regardless, I agree with ex-dragoon that any of the above items are infact, big ticket and with the "big ticket" comes a big bill.....one of which we could not afford with the current budget.

Now I agree with others here that we should look at these kind of capabilities, but lower our sights so to speak. Now the Australians are looking at two "medium weight" LHDs/LPDs to replace their current fleet of three Phibs, and IIRC, they are looking at a French and a Spanish design, both of which are only a fraction of the cost of the larger American designs. Another example, might be HMS Ocean, which in the great scheme things, was cheap. Also, compared to the American design, these ships also have quite the reduction in crew size, which is the most expensive part of any ship.

Now if the current (or near future) navies of Spain and Australia will be able to operate these kinds of ships, i fail to see why we can't. In both cases, (if the 280s are replaced) our navy will have the same (possably larger) number of hulls as those of the Spanish and Australian navies.