And let me add, you are indeed the first that I've heard say the CPF have a "significant Anti-Missile Capability", could you expand on that? Perhaps, saying the CPF has the potentail to have a decent self defence capability in a low to medium threat environment is a more apt description.....
For those who want to read about the Conservative's Military Plan....
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
First, I did answer it:
You incorrectly stated that I was in favour of an Air-only defence solution which I never did.
I've always contended that there needed to be a surface fleet escort.
I've always contended that they would be Halifax-class Frigates after their mid-life upgrade (which I assume includes new radar + RAM).
Next:
NATO navies are acquiring Area Air Defence Ships for different reasons. The British Type 45 and Italian/French Horizon Class are designed specifically to protect their Carriers which they recognize as their primary asset in any battlespace. The other nations are building smaller escort ships with improved AAW to act as part of a larger cooperative convoy on group deployments.
Now I'd like you to answer a question:
Since you are so willing to attack my model which places a small carrier with JSF (the real asset) as the centre of my battle group, please justify how your implied model (with CADRE) would better serve our soldiers either during transit or while deployed where they otherwise would have had JSF air cover?
Matthew. ;D
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
What is the RCN's dedicated task in the grand scheme of thing's?Re;NATO
ASW and Escort Duties for Naval Task Forces and Merchant Convoy Escort, this has not changed since the last War.
The JSS is a step in the right direction but1 or 2 Small Carriers with Harriers is also another good idea as the Harrier is a good Air to Air and Air to Ground platform and has proven this for years aslo we could use it in any terrain with in Canada as the Brits. have proven.
For Helo's bring back the Chinook for troop transport as it also gives a semi heavy lift capability from ship to shore.
ASW and Escort Duties for Naval Task Forces and Merchant Convoy Escort, this has not changed since the last War.
The JSS is a step in the right direction but1 or 2 Small Carriers with Harriers is also another good idea as the Harrier is a good Air to Air and Air to Ground platform and has proven this for years aslo we could use it in any terrain with in Canada as the Brits. have proven.
For Helo's bring back the Chinook for troop transport as it also gives a semi heavy lift capability from ship to shore.
The CPF is not an air defence platform, I'd even doubt that it could defend itself against next generation Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles, let alone defend other ships.
Huh? So your saying that other countries are developing area air defence ships to protect other ships against airborne threats? As for your second sentence, do you know what you meant by that? What would be the purpose of an escort within a convoy? Could it be to defend the said ships within that convoy? Now here's a big leap, what would a AAW ship be doing within a convoy? Maybe defending against air threats?
So I'll ask you again, why do the Kippers, Americans, French and Italians have AAW ships to protect their "primary asset in any battlespace"? Also, why is it that you think it not to be prudent for Canada to have AAW assets to protect any of our potentail future "asset in any battlespace"? In other words why does it appear that whats good for the goose is not good for the gander?
Simple, my "battlegroup" has a layered defence with DDG and FFHs protecting the "real asset", where as yours has a handful of primary stealth attack aircraft, teamed with FFHs and modified Kingstons (you were joking?). Now please, why is it that your "battlegroup" does not need modern area air defence ships, when all other modern blue water navies do?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I will state again!
Our Navy,since WWII has and still maintains it's ASW,Escort roll with a new task of intediction,so get off all the grand wishes and ideas!
Remember we have a BEER Budget not CHAMPAGNE Budget!!!
Lets just start with the JSS,it's a begining.
Our Navy,since WWII has and still maintains it's ASW,Escort roll with a new task of intediction,so get off all the grand wishes and ideas!
Remember we have a BEER Budget not CHAMPAGNE Budget!!!
Lets just start with the JSS,it's a begining.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Well said and well thought out DJL.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
This damn argument I can't keep away from. Oh well....
AGS281>>>interesting numbers for sailors but what about attrition? We are losing 400-600 a year through retirements or releases. So you are not getting ahead.
Cdn Blackshirt>>>> not sure if you ever watched carrier ops but planes don't launch in real rough weather and if you ever been to sea you would know especially in the Atlantic how fast a storm can come up. What ahppens to your overhead cover then? The only thing you have left is your air defence platform...oh wait you don't need those because your JSF is protecting you. Well the frigates would be around to fish whats left of your survivors out of the water. Also Kingstons???? I am not going to say anymore about them because again your point out yur vast naval knowledge to me once again lol.
Cdn Blackshirt said:
I'm kidding, but some of you guys need to take this less seriously
Excuse me but this is my job and what I do for a living. I make comments and you dismiss them outright even though I do this all the time! So your damn rights I take this seriously. This is like telling the armoured guys they don't need their tanks anymore...
AGS281>>>interesting numbers for sailors but what about attrition? We are losing 400-600 a year through retirements or releases. So you are not getting ahead.
Cdn Blackshirt>>>> not sure if you ever watched carrier ops but planes don't launch in real rough weather and if you ever been to sea you would know especially in the Atlantic how fast a storm can come up. What ahppens to your overhead cover then? The only thing you have left is your air defence platform...oh wait you don't need those because your JSF is protecting you. Well the frigates would be around to fish whats left of your survivors out of the water. Also Kingstons???? I am not going to say anymore about them because again your point out yur vast naval knowledge to me once again lol.
Cdn Blackshirt said:
I'm kidding, but some of you guys need to take this less seriously
Excuse me but this is my job and what I do for a living. I make comments and you dismiss them outright even though I do this all the time! So your damn rights I take this seriously. This is like telling the armoured guys they don't need their tanks anymore...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Matthew
As an outsider in this discussion I would like to suggest you take a step back and not be so confrontational with others when you "suggest" courses of action and whatnot.
Ex-dragoon has been in the Navy for over 10 years and does know exactly what he's talking about. You could learn from him and others ininstead of jumping in with both feet and being confrontational.
Just a thought.
Slim
A
ags281
Guest
In with my initial idea, I was sticking with the assumption that the plan was to increase the size of the forces (seeing as this was originally a post on the conservatives' defence plan). My plan was for a net average increase of 250 per year to the navy, not just 250 total new people a year, hence why a few hundred training personnel were assigned. I don't think that's all that ambitious. If someone with authority were to actually take a serious look at cleaning up the recruiting process - including courses and initial career progression in the two years following (IMO this should be done whether we plan to expand recruiting or not for morale reasons) - and efforts were to be stepped up a notch in the offices (i.e. a couple more people in recruiting offices who are committed to a long-term assignment in recruiting; I'm not suggesting people are not pulling their weight currently), I feel this figure is more than attainable.
With the second (realistic) option I put forward, it would actually cut down on the number of crew required over what we currently have committed to our AOR's. Not only this, but for tasks requiring only an AOR and not any lift capability, or vice versa, separate vessels could do the same task with more people left back at home to rest up for their next sea duty.
This brings up a question: does anyone have figures on how many people are going to be needed to crew a JSS? If it's somewhere near what we need to crew our current AOR's then I'd say my realistic (second) option is looking even better than it did before. It would provide more flexibility for crew to get some down time, have the same capabilities as a JSS, and would come at a roughly equal cost. Am I missing something, or could this work?
(edited b/c apparently I can't speel)
A
ags281
Guest
Oh yeah, regarding the CADRE issue, I'm with Dragoon.
Let's work on fixing the basics first, shall we? Get a bit of lift, and update our current capabilities before complicating doctrine needlessly. We need the jobs currently assigned to our 280's to remain relevant within NATO etc, so CADRE is definately needed to replace them. If we can get the basics fixed first, then later on down the road we can look at a something with a modest air detachment on board if it's determined that offensive airborne firepower from a sea platform could be useful for us.
Modern ships seem to be doing the same jobs but with less crew required, so CADRE hopefully will take less crew than the 280's (with our current procurement process though *cough* MGS *cough* you never know). Also, when the Halifax Class is replaced, the new ships should also have smaller crews. This would allow us to start thinking about additional capabilities around the time of the Halifax replacement (not the current upgrade). If the size of the navy is modestly increased as well, then perhaps we could start looking at a command ship or two with a modest air detachment. If we want to get more than the air power, then maybe LHA or something, fine. As far as I'm concerned though, the seaborne fighter capability debate is one or two decades away, with implementation three or so decades from now.
Trying to run before you can walk only gets you a close-up view of the dirt.
Let's work on fixing the basics first, shall we? Get a bit of lift, and update our current capabilities before complicating doctrine needlessly. We need the jobs currently assigned to our 280's to remain relevant within NATO etc, so CADRE is definately needed to replace them. If we can get the basics fixed first, then later on down the road we can look at a something with a modest air detachment on board if it's determined that offensive airborne firepower from a sea platform could be useful for us.
Modern ships seem to be doing the same jobs but with less crew required, so CADRE hopefully will take less crew than the 280's (with our current procurement process though *cough* MGS *cough* you never know). Also, when the Halifax Class is replaced, the new ships should also have smaller crews. This would allow us to start thinking about additional capabilities around the time of the Halifax replacement (not the current upgrade). If the size of the navy is modestly increased as well, then perhaps we could start looking at a command ship or two with a modest air detachment. If we want to get more than the air power, then maybe LHA or something, fine. As far as I'm concerned though, the seaborne fighter capability debate is one or two decades away, with implementation three or so decades from now.
Trying to run before you can walk only gets you a close-up view of the dirt.
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,160
Ex-Dragoon
Question for you.
As I understand it, it is going to cost us 2100 Million Canadian Dollars to build three JSS's, not including cost over runs.
4 Bay class LSL's (16,000 tonnes) cost the Brits less than 640 Million Canadian Dollars and are crewed in total by roughly the same number of seamen as currently man an AOR (recognizing that there are many trades in an AOR not directly related to sea-keeping). Apparently the British crew size is 60 all ranks per vessel vice, I believe, 247 all ranks for the AORs.
That means that at least 3 LSLs could be built and crewed for less cost than one JSS. (Might even leave some money for a degree of ice-strengthening).
I know that the fleet is designed to work with three AORs, however we have been limping along with two AORs for almost a decade now and the JSSs won't be on-line for at least another 7 years.
Could we look at replacing the purchase of the three JSSs with a purchase of 2 JSSs and 3 Transport ships?
Also might not the removal of the transport task from the JSSs, and the resultant simplification in design, reduce the unit cost of the JSSs and eventually allow for the purchase of a third unit in any event?
Is that something you might consider doable?
Cheers mate.
PS Based on information supplied in Flug Revue http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-17.htm and at the UK MOD's Defence Procurement Agency's site http://www.mod.uk/dpa/ipt/C17.htm one 16,000 tonne LSL capable of carrying 300 to 800 bodies plus transport and kit is cheaper than one (1) C-17.
The Budget for Squadron of 4 C17s leased for 7 years (750 Million Pounds or 1500 Million Canadian Dollars) would easily purchase 4 LSLs at 640 Million Canadian Dollars and leave money on the table for 23-24 EH-101 Utility or 23-24 C27J SAR/Transports or 11-12 C130J Hercules.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FREH101.htm
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-27J.htm
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-130J.htm
http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi
(Just to take the discussion away from a strictly "us against the navy" battle)
Question for you.
As I understand it, it is going to cost us 2100 Million Canadian Dollars to build three JSS's, not including cost over runs.
4 Bay class LSL's (16,000 tonnes) cost the Brits less than 640 Million Canadian Dollars and are crewed in total by roughly the same number of seamen as currently man an AOR (recognizing that there are many trades in an AOR not directly related to sea-keeping). Apparently the British crew size is 60 all ranks per vessel vice, I believe, 247 all ranks for the AORs.
That means that at least 3 LSLs could be built and crewed for less cost than one JSS. (Might even leave some money for a degree of ice-strengthening).
I know that the fleet is designed to work with three AORs, however we have been limping along with two AORs for almost a decade now and the JSSs won't be on-line for at least another 7 years.
Could we look at replacing the purchase of the three JSSs with a purchase of 2 JSSs and 3 Transport ships?
Also might not the removal of the transport task from the JSSs, and the resultant simplification in design, reduce the unit cost of the JSSs and eventually allow for the purchase of a third unit in any event?
Is that something you might consider doable?
Cheers mate.
PS Based on information supplied in Flug Revue http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-17.htm and at the UK MOD's Defence Procurement Agency's site http://www.mod.uk/dpa/ipt/C17.htm one 16,000 tonne LSL capable of carrying 300 to 800 bodies plus transport and kit is cheaper than one (1) C-17.
The Budget for Squadron of 4 C17s leased for 7 years (750 Million Pounds or 1500 Million Canadian Dollars) would easily purchase 4 LSLs at 640 Million Canadian Dollars and leave money on the table for 23-24 EH-101 Utility or 23-24 C27J SAR/Transports or 11-12 C130J Hercules.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FREH101.htm
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-27J.htm
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-130J.htm
http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi
(Just to take the discussion away from a strictly "us against the navy" battle
)
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Good points Kirkhill..the only thing I would change is 3 JSS and 2 dedicated transports of whatever class and type. With the navy down to 2 AORs for the past few years it has really hurt us especially on the east coast. With 3 we could get back up to snuff. Removal of the sealift capbility and turning the JSS back into AORs I think would save more money and cut down on a few more crew requirements. I don't know for sure as I don't know how the crew is being broken down (135 as I understand it right now).
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
AGS281>>>>well thought out. I will convert you to the darkside yet.
IMV, the AOR, Flex, MHP and the 280s replacement are the priority. With that said, those four programs are just replacing existing capabilities and if funded properly, should not pose any major problems intergrating into the current fleet. I'm sure everbody can agree on that.
Now were everybody's opinion seems to differ is in the area of adding to our current capacities. Now I'm an old fart and of the adage that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and because of that, I don't think that adding a small amphibious capability centered around 2-3 20K ton LHDs is out of our realm (if we start soon) in the next decade. Now AFAIK, our navy today works with USN Carrier Battlegroups and NATO, so we still have experience operating within larger task groups.
Now if we were planning on getting the said LHD in about ten years, perhaps we could look into shifting from working with USN CVBGs to operating with MEUs (or what ever the Marines call them this week) and thus not only gain experience operating with large task groups, but a large task group that is dedicated to working in the littorals. Now I won't pretend to know much about the army, but perhaps added to our Navy shifting some resources to operating with the Marines, we could also start deploying reinforced company sized groups within a Marine Battalion landing teams so the pongos can become associated with littoral warfare and scopolamine
I just think that if we think it through and are ready to pay for it, we should be able to do whatever we like (within reason).
Now were everybody's opinion seems to differ is in the area of adding to our current capacities. Now I'm an old fart and of the adage that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and because of that, I don't think that adding a small amphibious capability centered around 2-3 20K ton LHDs is out of our realm (if we start soon) in the next decade. Now AFAIK, our navy today works with USN Carrier Battlegroups and NATO, so we still have experience operating within larger task groups.
Now if we were planning on getting the said LHD in about ten years, perhaps we could look into shifting from working with USN CVBGs to operating with MEUs (or what ever the Marines call them this week) and thus not only gain experience operating with large task groups, but a large task group that is dedicated to working in the littorals. Now I won't pretend to know much about the army, but perhaps added to our Navy shifting some resources to operating with the Marines, we could also start deploying reinforced company sized groups within a Marine Battalion landing teams so the pongos can become associated with littoral warfare and scopolamine
I just think that if we think it through and are ready to pay for it, we should be able to do whatever we like (within reason).
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
We also have experience operating with ARGs (Amphibious Readiness Groups) so no you are correct we could easily switch from one to the other.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Let me start over....
I apologize if I've upset anyone as it was not my intent. I'm a big believer in debating ALL issues and although that requires a confrontation of paradigms it does not necessity a confrontation of personalities. In short, I don't wish any ill-will towards any of you and am simply presenting a model that I think will work until I'm educated why it will not, at which point my model would be modified. Short Version: Although I'm presenting a specific model - I'm here to learn....
On the issue at hand, I have made a number of assumptions in order to construct my alternate model that appear to be false.
Can either DJL or ex-dragoon clarify why the Halifax-class either at this point or during its mid-life upgrade will not be able to defend other assets against incoming missiles because that one assumption on my part is what validated a shift away from CADRE and to an alternative.
Additionally, how different are the radar/weapons/command structures/roles of deployed 280's versus CPF's. I always assumed (not a soldier or a sailor) the CPF's and 280's would operate very much in the same mode scanning for Air/Sea/Sub threats at all times with the 280's being incrementally better at Air Defence and the CPF's being incrementally better at ASW. If this is false and within the convoy they currently take much more specialized roles and their capability are exponentially different at those roles, please clarify. As a final note, if you did decide that wanted the Halifax to become a more advanced multipurpose hull with significant AAW capability, could it not be modified for that role during its midlife upgrade just as the Tribals were with TRUMP at their midlife upgrade? (They were originally ASW platforms were they not?)
Thank you in advance,
Matthew.
I apologize if I've upset anyone as it was not my intent. I'm a big believer in debating ALL issues and although that requires a confrontation of paradigms it does not necessity a confrontation of personalities. In short, I don't wish any ill-will towards any of you and am simply presenting a model that I think will work until I'm educated why it will not, at which point my model would be modified. Short Version: Although I'm presenting a specific model - I'm here to learn....
On the issue at hand, I have made a number of assumptions in order to construct my alternate model that appear to be false.
Can either DJL or ex-dragoon clarify why the Halifax-class either at this point or during its mid-life upgrade will not be able to defend other assets against incoming missiles because that one assumption on my part is what validated a shift away from CADRE and to an alternative.
Additionally, how different are the radar/weapons/command structures/roles of deployed 280's versus CPF's. I always assumed (not a soldier or a sailor) the CPF's and 280's would operate very much in the same mode scanning for Air/Sea/Sub threats at all times with the 280's being incrementally better at Air Defence and the CPF's being incrementally better at ASW. If this is false and within the convoy they currently take much more specialized roles and their capability are exponentially different at those roles, please clarify. As a final note, if you did decide that wanted the Halifax to become a more advanced multipurpose hull with significant AAW capability, could it not be modified for that role during its midlife upgrade just as the Tribals were with TRUMP at their midlife upgrade? (They were originally ASW platforms were they not?)
Thank you in advance,
Matthew.
Is an ARG one in the same as a MEU?
Thats simple Cdn Blackshirt, the CPFs were not designed to provide air defence to a task group. It's like asking a Plumber to fix your car. The plumber was wasn't trained in mechanics, but (like TRUMP) if you throw enough money at him, you might be able to train him in some aspects of engine repair, but in the end you are paying through the nose to have a plumber fix your car, when it would have been cheaper to just get a mechanic.
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,160
DJL
It is my understanding that the ARG is the Group of Ships that carry an MEU. The MEU is a light infantry battle group based on a Marine battalion, which includes 3 rifle companies (light), one HMMWV company (with HMGs, 40mm AGLs and TOWs) and a mortar platoon augmented by an LAV platoon, a tank platoon, an arty battery and an air defence platoon.
The ARG contributes Naval Gunfire Support as well as a small force of Harriers and AH1 Cobras (about a dozen total). The force also hase the equivalent of 3 recce platoons along with a strong Military Intelligence capability based on UAVs and other sensors.
MY Ideal........ Sorry, I momentarily swooned.
Be nice if we could reorganize as a bunch of MEUs but replace the HMMWV company with a LAV company. Dreaming my life away here.
Cheers.
It is my understanding that the ARG is the Group of Ships that carry an MEU. The MEU is a light infantry battle group based on a Marine battalion, which includes 3 rifle companies (light), one HMMWV company (with HMGs, 40mm AGLs and TOWs) and a mortar platoon augmented by an LAV platoon, a tank platoon, an arty battery and an air defence platoon.
The ARG contributes Naval Gunfire Support as well as a small force of Harriers and AH1 Cobras (about a dozen total). The force also hase the equivalent of 3 recce platoons along with a strong Military Intelligence capability based on UAVs and other sensors.
MY Ideal........ Sorry, I momentarily swooned.
Be nice if we could reorganize as a bunch of MEUs but replace the HMMWV company with a LAV company. Dreaming my life away here.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,160
Oh yeah, I just remembered, Janes Defence Weekly is reporting (has reported?) that the Marines are rethinking their small unit tactics.
Rather than 13 man sections operating in a battalion framework they are reorienting into 8 man sections that will operate as a pair of 4 man patrols. This will allow them to influence (not necessarily dominate) more ground. Presumably they feel they can do this because of the extended range, greater precision and greater effect of the fire support available to cover them. Essentially they are creating more eyes on the ground to spot for the arty.
This structure is more in keeping with the policing role that they see being more in line with their duties in the future. The marines have always been more comfortable in this role than the army having done it for over a hundred years (China and the Phillipines as well as the Caribean).
When required to fight a more conventional battle they will reform (presumably still with 8 man sections) as a battalion.
I see their posture as being of one hand forward, fingers splayed, maintaining contact with the locals (the rifle companies with attached HMMWVs acting as patrols) the other hand held in reserve as a fist ready to react (One of with rifle companies mounted on AAAVs with the tanks, guns and air support).
Again, an interesting model for us to emulate I believe.
Rather than 13 man sections operating in a battalion framework they are reorienting into 8 man sections that will operate as a pair of 4 man patrols. This will allow them to influence (not necessarily dominate) more ground. Presumably they feel they can do this because of the extended range, greater precision and greater effect of the fire support available to cover them. Essentially they are creating more eyes on the ground to spot for the arty.
This structure is more in keeping with the policing role that they see being more in line with their duties in the future. The marines have always been more comfortable in this role than the army having done it for over a hundred years (China and the Phillipines as well as the Caribean).
When required to fight a more conventional battle they will reform (presumably still with 8 man sections) as a battalion.
I see their posture as being of one hand forward, fingers splayed, maintaining contact with the locals (the rifle companies with attached HMMWVs acting as patrols) the other hand held in reserve as a fist ready to react (One of with rifle companies mounted on AAAVs with the tanks, guns and air support).
Again, an interesting model for us to emulate I believe.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Kirkhill you are correct with regard to what the ARG and its relation to an MEU is.
Cdn Blackshirt...what you have to look at is ranges of the air defence platforms and their roles. The 280s are Area Defence Destroyers, the Halifax class FFH are multi role frigates optimized for ASW with Point Defence Sea Sparrows, in other words local which means own ship. Yes if someone is close by they can use it but its not as effective and besides operating in a Task Group, CPFs are usually away from the group to provide that degree of protection against a sub surface threat. SM2s carried on 280s have a range between 75-100km, the CPFs Sea Sparrows have a range of approx 15km and when you are speaking of supersonic sea skimmers thats not a lot of range to work with.
Cdn Blackshirt...what you have to look at is ranges of the air defence platforms and their roles. The 280s are Area Defence Destroyers, the Halifax class FFH are multi role frigates optimized for ASW with Point Defence Sea Sparrows, in other words local which means own ship. Yes if someone is close by they can use it but its not as effective and besides operating in a Task Group, CPFs are usually away from the group to provide that degree of protection against a sub surface threat. SM2s carried on 280s have a range between 75-100km, the CPFs Sea Sparrows have a range of approx 15km and when you are speaking of supersonic sea skimmers thats not a lot of range to work with.
Similar threads
