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

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I was using ex-dragoon's pricing.....    ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Way to run for cover Blackshirt ;D

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

Here's an interesting link for comparing vessels.

Noteworthy is the fact that the Spanish and Dutch are Crewing their 16000 ton LPDs with 124-128 personnel vice 285 for a DDH.  The Brits, sailing the same ship in unarmed configuration are only using 60 civilians (total crew).  It seems that one DDH crew could handle between 2 and 4 of the LPDs.  That would give more than enough lift for a BattleGroup (the Dutch carry a 615 marine battalion along with a squadron of MBTs about 80 other vehicles and half-a-dozen Pumas in one hull).

The Brits built their 4 for 640 million dollars (the set - not per unit).  http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/landing_ship_dock_auxillary.htm

Amount budgeted for 3 JSS 2100 milllion dollars.  Interesting use of funds.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Again Kirkhill would you want to be on a ship that had no air defence escorts? You give up the 280s to man an LHA/LPD and that is exactly what you are doing. Contrary to popular believe the CPFs are only good to protect themselves  and ships in real real close with their Sea Sparrows. You want to kill the ones shooting at you then you want a 280 or better.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Kirkhill: "Way to run for cover Blackshirt!"

When in doubt, duck-and-cover....

Of note, to Dragoon, re: AAW Destroyers I would contend that for the most part other than being better at knocking down incoming missiles,
they are for the most part redundant.  This may be an unpopular opinion but a quick comparison of the ranges of Exocet/Harpoon/etc
versus SM-2 and the math very quickly highlights the fact that the enemy will be able to fire and retreat before your destroyer can even
get a missile lock, much less fire and then chase an opposing aircraft after it turns away from your battlegroup having released its missiles.

In short, my take is that:
1)  We rarely need air protection
2)  If we do need air protection, the only way to go is a new carrier with JSF-C as they can create that all-important strategic depth necessary
for our forces to be able to engage that incoming enemy aircraft prior to them launching thier antiship missiles.

My Canadian White Paper would therefore retire the (4) 280's outright and transition to a single small carrier which would form the centre
of a new Expeditionary Forces Battlegroup (with (4) networked and upgraded Kingstons providing the close-in air defence against missiles that
do manage to get launched as well as ASW protection).

As always, thoughts welcome....

Cheers,



Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Since you guys obviously have more naval experience then I could ever hope to then fill your boots. As its obvious to me I am wasting my time having this discussion.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know that I can go as far as Blackshirt.  Advances in technology, in the form of longer range loitering missiles with precision attack capability, vertically launched ASROCs, UAVs, drones, long endurance sonars, rail guns and a host of others are extending the area that a platform at sea can dominate.  (They also bring into question the need for the large helicopter in the ASW mode - but that is another debate).

I don't want to scrap the capability of the DDHs.  Actually I would like to see the CADRE type vessel with the Theatre AAD missiles.

What I was suggesting was that the crews for the transport ships are not very big and that the skill sets required can be handled by civilian seamen in worst case.

My understanding is that manning requirements for all vessels is falling so the likelihood is that the DDH replacement would require fewer bodies than the DDH themselves.  If 60 bodies could be removed from the manning requirement of each DDH couldn't they be reallocated to man 4 transport vessels according to the British model?

In worst case if all 285 bodies of a full DDH crew were reallocated to transport duties wouldn't that still leave enough bodies to man three DDHs?

Over.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

To ex-dragoon,

I'm only presenting a viewpoint.  I thought the point of all message boards was to share viewpoints and learn from each others experiences, education and knowledge.

As such, if you think my idea is daft I'd love to hear to where the logic of my previous argument broke down.

To Kirkhill,

One though I had on Theatre Defence was to outfit two of the LPD-17's with 155mms (like the germans are testing with the PZH2000 turrets) while the third is
designed as a command ship with your Theatre Air Defence Systems.  The Spanish put an Aegis-Light package onto their F100-series frigates so I would bet if
we're starting from empty hulls we could put a more than adequate system into an LPD-17.


Cheers all,



Matthew. 

 

[DJL]

[quoteOf note, to Dragoon, re: AAW Destroyers I would contend that for the most part other than being better at knocking down incoming missiles,
they are for the most part redundant.  This may be an unpopular opinion but a quick comparison of the ranges of Exocet/Harpoon/etc
versus SM-2 and the math very quickly highlights the fact that the enemy will be able to fire and retreat before your destroyer can even
get a missile lock, much less fire and then chase an opposing aircraft after it turns away from your battlegroup having released its missiles.
]
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time follwing your logic here.......In one hand we have your "math" and in the other, we have the "math" of countless other Navies and defence contractors. I understand the latter's "math", but as I said, I fail to understand yours.....Please explain.

In short, my take is that:
1)  We rarely need air protection
2)  If we do need air protection, the only way to go is a new carrier with JSF-C as they can create that all-important strategic depth necessary
for our forces to be able to engage that incoming enemy aircraft prior to them launching thier antiship missiles.

So you would delete the area air defence ship, in favor of now buying not only a LHD/LPD, but a "proper" CVN? Thats quite the jump, a Nimitz like Carrier and Air Group is now looking to cost at least one and a half times our entire defence budget.

My Canadian White Paper would therefore retire the (4) 280's outright and transition to a single small carrier which would form the centre
of a new Expeditionary Forces Battlegroup (with (4) networked and upgraded Kingstons providing the close-in air defence against missiles that
do manage to get launched as well as ASW protection).

You are joking right?

What I was suggesting was that the crews for the transport ships are not very big and that the skill sets required can be handled by civilian seamen in worst case.

My understanding is that manning requirements for all vessels is falling so the likelihood is that the DDH replacement would require fewer bodies than the DDH themselves.  If 60 bodies could be removed from the manning requirement of each DDH couldn't they be reallocated to man 4 transport vessels according to the British model?

I got an idea, how about the Canadian government finance half a dozen 30-40k ton commercial RO/RO vessels. Have them built in one of South Korea/Norway/Spain, then lease them out to Cdn flag shipping companies (I'm thinking Washington Marine Group), with part of the contract allowing them to operate the ships for revenue, but they must allow for 1-2 of the ships to be available to DND within relatively short notice. (72 hrs?)

To ex-dragoon,

I'm only presenting a viewpoint.  I thought the point of all message boards was to share viewpoints and learn from each others experiences, education and knowledge.

As such, if you think my idea is daft I'd love to hear to where the logic of my previous argument broke down.

IMHO, it would probably be faster to tell you were your logic didn't break down......but I've yet to find that.

One though I had on Theatre Defence was to outfit two of the LPD-17's with 155mms (like the germans are testing with the PZH2000 turrets) while the third is
designed as a command ship with your Theatre Air Defence Systems.  The Spanish put an Aegis-Light package onto their F100-series frigates so I would bet if
we're starting from empty hulls we could put a more than adequate system into an LPD-17.

You want to use 6 inch guns for air defence? Kinda unconventional, but I suppose that the Japanese did make "bird shot" for the Yamoto's 18 inchers  :-  (look how well that turned out)

So you now want to buy "empty" LPD-17 hulls, then intergrate "Aegis-light" (never heard of it) into some sort of "hybrid" ( I prefer iinbred. Why not spend that money on tacking onto the end of the flight IIa Burke order?

 

[ags281]

Definitely some interesting ideas going around here. Since I spouted off on a different thread yesterday on this topic without doing any homework first, I guess I'll try and put some numbers to my daydreaming here for comparison's sake (I must be getting bored - it's amazing how much time I have with my GF working out of town during the week   :).

I'm assuming for convenience that there will be a net annual increase in sailors of 250 over the next 10-15 years, and that every single spot on a current ship can be filled but leaving zero relief crew.

1) 2005 to 2010:
1.1) 10 x Halifax upgrades. That's right, 10   . This frees up 2 x 225 = 450 sailors.----Cost: $1,000 million(not including the revenue from selling two)
1.2) 3 x AOR replacement. 160 crew per gives (2 x 365) - (3 x 160) = 250 for 700 total.----Cost: $1,000 million (#'s based on Amsterdam Class)
1.3) 1 x LPD (1st of 2) plus some LCU's. Uses 125 crew, leaving 575----Cost: $300 million (crew # based on Rotterdam, cost is a complete guess)
1.4) 1 x Ro-Ro (1st of 2; 10,000-15,000 tonnes) Crew ~20, leaving 555 sailors.----Cost:$150 million (crew based on UK numbers, cost as per the LPD)
1.5) 20 x EH-101. The current order isn't big enough with attrition, and we need 4 or 5 more per LPD.----Cost: $1,000 million
1.6) There are still 555 sailors left. Their job is now to train the 1250 recruits that I'd like to see in these 5 years. These 1250 will in turn allow full crews of all vessels, and provide some much needed rotation between ship and shore duties, bringing us back to 0 free sailors.

2) 2010 to 2015:
2.1) 4 x Iroquois replacements (air defence + c/c). Crew of 200 per leaves 200 sailors extra from the 250 or so on each 280----Cost: $5,000 million (crew size based on Dutch/Spanish/German example, cost from CADRE estimate)
2.2) 1 x LPD (2nd of 2) as in 1.3, leaving 75 sailors.----Cost: $300 million
2.3) 1 x Ro-Ro (2nd of 2) as in 1.4, leaving about 50 crew----Cost: $150 million
2.4) Oh yeah... we recruited another 1250 since 2010, so make that 1300

3) 2015-2020:
3.1) 10 x frigate (~3,000 tonne FFH's). Crew of 130 per. There's 1300 crew just sitting around from 2.4. Coincidence? No. Mystery math? Yes   . We're now even on the crew----Cost: $4,000 million (#'s from recent European examples)
3.2) Those 10 ships need some birds... 15-20 x helicopters (type & exact number TBA)----Cost: $1,000 million or so
3.3) Recruiting (net growth) during these five years may continue as normal, or be slowed/halted if all needs for crew rotation have been met (keep in mind there's still that extra 555 people in a training role that will be free again once recruiting slows down).
3.4) From here on in it's back to slightly more routine procurements (eg Submarine, Halifax, and Kingston replacements all at roughly 1:1)


What we gain:
- 8 more frigates than we have now
- brand new air defence / command and control ships
- brand new AOR's (smaller but more of them)
- 2 LPD's, and 2 Ro-Ro's so we can actually deploy our own army (the money we saved by avoiding the Wasp can be used to get enough vehicles, weapons, body armour, and bodies to go inside of them for our army to actually fill the 4 ships)
- more helicopters.

What's the price?:
-$933 million per year
-salary/benefits for 1500 or so more people than what we need with the current fleet (~$100 million/yr???).
-associated training, etc costs as mentioned by others

Is it practical?:
-At $933 million a year, you can make the anchors out of solid gold plus promote 20 more unnecessary general ranks, and it'll still be within reach.
-Getting 250 extra recruits per year? If we can't reach that tiny goal then we don't deserve to have a military.

Ok, so I simplified the numbers a bit, but it's enough to give the basic idea. Of course the selling of 2 frigates initially could be avoided by just scrapping the Iroquois to free up the personnel instead (I just went with the frigates because I thought of it first). The extra 10 frigates later on are, naturally, optional but would help in running escort for the LPD's (though not getting them would make the plan incredibly affordable).

I also think the 2 ro-ro's should be donated to the Canadian people free of charge by Paul Martin (it's not like he doesn't have a few to give to a worthy cause) in exchange for our tax dollars that his government gave to their buddies. That's about as likely as my above plan being realistic given that we're going for the JSS deal.

Chasing down all these numbers has sure made it clear to me that even a little bit would help us out a ridiculous amount.

 

[Infanteer]

Can we add a Star Destroyer to that budget as well?

 

[Infanteer]

As well, I have an interesting quote for all you junior admirals who advocate we look for big ticket items that will essentially put all our eggs into one basket....

In future conflicts and crises, carrier and amphibious battlegroups will have to adjust constantly for a wide range of emerging threats: shallow water submarines, stand-off missiles, underwater mines, space-based surveillance, and unmanned aeriel vehicles.   Prudent response to these threats establishes where naval and amphibious operate, an that, in turn, establishes how far inland naval and amphibious forces can influence the action.   Sea-based forces are ideal targets for weapons of mass destruction when they attempt to execute forced entry operations from the sea.   The concentration of several thousand sailors, airmen, and Marines in an amphibious or Nimitz-class aircraft carrier risks single-point failure in future warfighting. (emphasis mine)

Col Douglas Macgregor, Breaking the Phalanx, pg 127

Perhaps we are looking in the wrong direction (ie up, not down)....

 

[DJL]

Was Col Douglas Macgregor a Marine? I ask because the USN has no plans to "get smaller" Phibs or Carriers in the near future (leaner crews perhaps), but after reading a few things in print and over the net, the Marines seem to be looking to get "bigger" in terms of shipping (Sea Base and Wasp plug plus) so as to be able to incoperate new, larger kit (AAAV/Osprey/HLCAC/F-35B).

Col Macgregor's point reminds of those that have said that the MBT is a cold war dinosaur.

 

[Kirkhill]

What I was suggesting was that the crews for the transport ships are not very big and that the skill sets required can be handled by civilian seamen in worst case.

My understanding is that manning requirements for all vessels is falling so the likelihood is that the DDH replacement would require fewer bodies than the DDH themselves.  If 60 bodies could be removed from the manning requirement of each DDH couldn't they be reallocated to man 4 transport vessels according to the British model?


I got an idea, how about the Canadian government finance half a dozen 30-40k ton commercial RO/RO vessels. Have them built in one of South Korea/Norway/Spain, then lease them out to Cdn flag shipping companies (I'm thinking Washington Marine Group), with part of the contract allowing them to operate the ships for revenue, but they must allow for 1-2 of the ships to be available to DND within relatively short notice. (72 hrs?)

An equally valid concept.  Similar logic could be applied to heavy lift strategic aircraft.  Just have to guarantee that a sufficient portion of the fleet is available on the notice demanded.

As to the defence of the vessels and/or use of vessels in times of war, reservists with bolt on weapons packages maybe? and how were the liner Canberra and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor crewed by the Brits in the Falklands?

 

[ags281]

...for all you junior admirals who advocate we look for big ticket items that will essentially put all our eggs into one basket....

Infanteer:

That's exactly why I didn't include any LHA or other monstrosity in my plan. It's not an elaborate amphibious battle group, just a flexible means of moving a group that's too large to get where they're needed by airlift alone. The entire starting point for my daydreaming was to outline a moderate sealift capability while keeping things relatively "small ticket" and breaking up the capabilities that actually are going to be put "into one basket" in real life with the JSS. If you don't think my approach worked, that's fine. However, if you have this figured out, how about giving a few ideas on how you would do it differently. I'd rather hear what you think can be done than what you think can't.

Getting down to bare minimum requirements (it was imagination after all), and pulling things we're getting independent of JSS (280 replacement, Halifax upgrade,   and personnel to ease the current strain on the navy) from the cost, my list becomes:

-3 AOR's ($1000 million)
-2 ro-ro's ($400 million - bigger than before, with hangar facilities and half troops/half equipment to compensate for no LPD)
-8 helicopters ($400 million)   2-3 for each ro-ro, remainder for maintenance rotation
-no additionnal personnel are required, as it takes less to crew the above than our current AOR's alone.

Over the years 2005-2015 that would cost $180 million annually to gain sealift (to estabilished ports only - there goes some flexibility with the LPD's) and replace the AOR's. That's not all that shabby, though with the ro-ro's taking over the entire transport role they've pretty much become very large targets anyway and might as well be built as command ships too. So much for decentralizing things.

Anyway, that's enough thought about navy stuff to last me for quite a while.  

Ta  

 

[Infanteer]

Was Col Douglas Macgregor a Marine? I ask because the USN has no plans to "get smaller" Phibs or Carriers in the near future (leaner crews perhaps), but after reading a few things in print and over the net, the Marines seem to be looking to get "bigger" in terms of shipping (Sea Base and Wasp plug plus) so as to be able to incoperate new, larger kit (AAAV/Osprey/HLCAC/F-35B).

Col Macgregor's point reminds of those that have said that the MBT is a cold war dinosaur.

Well, your quite off the mark.  Col Macgregor is a US Cavalryman who led 2nd Squadron, 2 ACR in the first Gulf War.  Rather than a backward thinker, Macgregor is a proponent of the Information Age RMA, and sees a historical trend in the downsizing of an Army's key all arms formation as a important measure of success on the battlefield.  I would encourage people to pick up Breaking the Phalanx.  I am waiting to get my hands on his new book, Transformation Under Fire.  Although geared towards reform in the US Army, I believe his ideas are universally applicable to 21st century warfare.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

You'll have to excuse me because I'm new, but I'm confused whether I'm facing
snide sarcasm or genuine dislike.

Who wants some of this?     :threat:

I'm kidding, but some of you guys need to take this less seriously....   ;D

Specifically DHL, the math as per my first post is follows:

An Air Launched Anti-shipping Missile can be fired from in excess of 100km's

Assuming you are trying to defend your Battlegroup with AAW Destroyers only,
you would have difficulty locking onto an aircraft outside 50km.

MATH:   A low flying aircraft could have fired it's missile well outside your ability
to engage it and as such the best your vaunted AAW Destroyers are left to try
to destroy the incoming missile rather than the aircraft that launched it.

On the other hand if you have JSF-C patrolling a perimeter between you and
the enemy force they would be able to intercept the aircraft before releasing
its payload.

Even better, with JSF you actually have the ability to destroy them on the
ground.

As to your claim that all the world's navies agree with your math instead of mine,
I would totally disagree.

All major powers are moving to carriers that can carry aircraft that have the
ability to intercept high-speed incoming aircraft.   One of the great lessons of
the Falklands War was that not even a Sea Harrier could protect a fleets from
long-range missile attack due to its limited range and speed.

Where AAW destroyers are being procured is to defend those expensive carriers
from the missiles you cannot hope to engage with their patrol aircraft.   In particular
ground launched sea-skimming missiles like the Silkworm-derivative that hit Kuwait
during the last war pose a real threat.

My bottom line:   There is an exponential return on investmentin terms of protection
and overall capability if you moved to JSF-C Small Carrier versus 4 new CADRE
Destroyers and we should be willing to explore that alternative and not dismiss it
out of hand.

Now once again I'll request comments, but ask everyone to please play nice.



Matthew.   :tank:

P.S.   You'll note that my program had $1.2 billion in upgrades to the Halifax-class
to better handle that close-in missile defence responsibility.   (RAM, etc.)    8)

 

[DJL]

As to the defence of the vessels and/or use of vessels in times of war, reservists with bolt on weapons packages maybe? and how were the liner Canberra and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor crewed by the Brits in the Falklands?

That sounds like it might work, but I'm not too sure if any of the P&O (or other Brit flag) ships were armed in the Falklands, perhaps if Conveyor had of been armed with some sort of CIWS, the war might have been slightly shorter and a little less bloody for the kippers.

Well, your quite off the mark.  Col Macgregor is a US Cavalryman who led 2nd Squadron, 2 ACR in the first Gulf War.  Rather than a backward thinker, Macgregor is a proponent of the Information Age RMA, and sees a historical trend in the downsizing of an Army's key all arms formation as a important measure of success on the battlefield.  I would encourage people to pick up Breaking the Phalanx.  I am waiting to get my hands on his new book, Transformation Under Fire.  Although geared towards reform in the US Army, I believe his ideas are universally applicable to 21st century warfare.

I do agree with you/Col Macgregor that yes indeed, net centric warfare is the way of the future (and not just for pickles) and the growing advances in computers/Comms etc must be made priority. I also agree with putting "all the eggs in one basket" is a bad thing, and should be avoided when possable, but as of yet, I'm not sure that all the technology is here to start "fighting the war of the future" (Eg Plastic Tanks, UCAVs, Trimaran hulled frigates), so until the time that this "stuff" reaches the shelf (The years later the CF) shouldn't we still be looking at kit that is proven to be useful today and into the near future?

Regardless, the Pongos still need to be given a ride to the fight and when there, supported. This is something that Canada should not have to beg, borrow or steal to get done, and with that said, I still would guess that a Plastic tanks would still need a lift into theater, just like a modern 70 ton MBT.

 

[DJL]

Cdn Blackshirt, two questions, why does the United States Navy, escort it's Carriers with numerous Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers, when all they need is "and Aircraft patrolling at a distance"? Also, what happens if the "Aircraft patrolling at a distance" isn't able to splash the enemy aircraft/missile? Now give it a think then let me know what you come up with.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Cdn Blackshirt, two questions, why does the United States Navy, escort it's Carriers with numerous Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers, when all they need is "and Aircraft patrolling at a distance"? Also, what happens if the "Aircraft patrolling at a distance" isn't able to splash the enemy aircraft/missile? Now give it a think then let me know what you come up with.

1)   I never contended that you don't need some sort of close-in support in order to try to protect your central core from the missiles that do get through.   In fact, I would argue that you need multiple surface combatants to create a protective ring around your key assets.  

My contention is that if you have to protect a core battlegroup carrying 1000-2000 Canadian soldiers and we already have 12 Frigates in inventory with a significant Anti-Missile Capability, in context of these existing assets I would argue that the addition of a single carrier carrying JSF-C provides the greater level of additional security going into a hostile environment.

Case in Point....

Battlegroup One (CADRE)
(3) Undetermined Large Transport Ships carrying 2000 Soldiers
(3) CADRE-class AAW Destroyers
(5) Halifax-class Frigates (Post-Midlife Upgrade assumeably with new Radar/RAM)

Battlegroup Two (WASP)
(3) Undetermined Large Transport Ships carrying 2000 soldiers
(1) Stretched Wasp Carrier with 12 JSF
(5) Halifax-class Frigates (Post-Midlife Upgrade assumeably with new Radar/RAM)

Bottom Line:   I would argue that for the extra cost that Battlegroup Two gives our Soldiers not only exponentially better defence during transit but as importantly can support them while on the ground with overwhelming airpower (JSF's would be a overmatch in any theatre).

Look forward to your response....

Cheers DJL,



Matthew.  

P.S.   I skipped #2 because I babbled during #1 and think I covered it too....    ;D

 

[DJL]

Cdn Blackshirt, you never answered my question, now go give her a think and by all means, get back to me. Well your at it, tell me why it is that a majority of NATO navies have either just completed, in the process of completing or have plans for in the near future of purchasing Area Air Defence ships?