Loss of the 280s

[Ex-Dragoon]

Loss of the 280s and what it would mean for the navy and the CF in general. This is if the Liberal plan goes through.
1) Loss of the Iroquois class destroyers will mean we would never command a Task Force again such as TF151 in the Persian gulf. CPFs can do the job but they are no where near as capable as the destroyers.
2) Loss of naval air defence capability. You army types are seeing this now but imagine you are sitting in the hold of a JSS when an air raid comes in and you might have to rely on missiles with shorter ranges and less reaction time in case they miss or are successfully decoyed away. Sea Sparrow and ESSM are Point Defence and short range systems.
3) Loss of another C4I platform.
4) Loss of another surface platform that can carry ASW assets.
5) Further overtaxation of our 12 CPFs increasing crew and unit fatigue and equipment failure and causing the eventual loss of personnel.
6) Once we lose a capbility the goverment is loathe to get it back.
I am sure there are others and as I think of them I will add them please feel free to add your thoughts.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Granatstein's article also referred to losing 2 CPF's. Something has really gone off kilter with defence policy in the past few weeks if all of these changes take place. I think Douglas Bland's predictions are taking hold far more rapidly than expected. Assuming all of this actually comes to fruition, I give the blue water navy 10 years life expectancy, not much longer for the airforce. As for the JSS, it would be sheer lunacy to proceed with the project without the protection of MR AAD protection, unless they are actually, [stupidly] thinking of fitting the ship with protection beyond point defence. Perhaps troop and cargo carrying ought to remain contracted out in order to spare the Navy a disaster.     

As I said in an earlier post somewhere, the appointment of Mr. Elcock, the master of spin and disinformation, was as sure sign something controversial is about to occur.  Here we go ...     

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The loss of 2 CPFs plus the 3 280s would destroy us as a navy. We would not be worth squat to anyone and I have no doubt would not be asked again to escort USN CVBGs.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Well, IMO I think that is ultimately the point of the whole exercise ... the so-called whither on the vine and descend into irrelevancy theory. Its started 40 years ago, and may about to be rapidly accelerated. This is all very confusing and makes no sense. BMD supporters one day, pacifists "peacekeepers" the next - effectively disarmed for practical purposes. WTF?   I had lunch with 2 DOJ pers., they say that this gov't is more secretive than under JC's tenure, and is dangerously volatile in its policy decision making process ... no sh*t.  

Have three questions for those who are reading this thread. Serious, concise and if possible, referenced replies would be appreciated.

How serious is this threat of platform deletion to Canada and her citizens at home and abroad, and the Canadian Forces deployed overseas?           i.e. Is there a probablity that the CF may not be able to defend citizens from attack. or rescue citizens overseas if the need arises? If deployed    operationally, are Canadian Forces members going to be exposed to additional risk or enhanced threat?

Will irreparable harm occur to the Canadian Forces, and will the CF be able to properly defend Canadian interests?
Can the roles of these platforms sufficiently be taken on by surviving systems such that the issues in question 1 can be sufficiently addressed?  

Could this decision have been taken any other way?
Self explanatory, but just in case ... should there have been consultation, with who and how extensive should the consultation have been? What factors ought the MND take into consideration in making this type of decision.

I have my own notes on these questions, just looking for a little supplementary assistance. Every little snippet will help.

Thanks in advance ... W601. You can message me if you wish, rather than post.




           

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well, IMO I think that is ultimately the point of the whole exercise ... the so-called whither on the vine and descend into irrelevancy theory. Its started 40 years ago, and may about to be rapidly accelerated. This is all very confusing and makes no sense. BMD supporters one day, pacifists "peacekeepers" the next - effectively disarmed for practical purposes. WTF?   I had lunch with 2 DOJ pers., they say that this gov't is more secretive than under JC's tenure, and is dangerously volatile in its policy decision making process ... no sh*t.  

Have three questions for those who are reading this thread. Serious, concise and if possible, referenced replies would be appreciated.

Hopefully 10 years experience in the navy is enough but I will answer your questions.

How serious is this threat of platform deletion to Canada and her citizens at home and abroad, and the Canadian Forces deployed overseas?           i.e. Is there a probablprobabilityhe CF may not be able to defend citizens from attack. or rescue citizens overseas if the need arises? If deployed    operationally, are Canadian Forces members going to be exposed to additional risk or enhanced threat?

OK Hypothetical situation. A Canadian TG consisting of a JSS and 2 CPF are deployed to the Republic of Godknowshere to carry out a UN operation to evacuate Canadian and foreign nationals from the rampaging hordes that are raping looting and murdering any of those caught. Godknowswhere Forces declare that any units violating their  territorial waters would be engaged by their newly obtained cruise missile equipped air force. Now instead of 90+ miles that an SM2 can engage targets you are down to about 20 if you have ESSM 7 if you are using normal Sea Sparrows. So instead of maybe being enable to knock down the platform carrying the cruise missiles you are at the mercy of said platform being able to get airborne volley fire its inventory, RTB and rearm and come back up for another mission. I don't think you would find any body in the navy comfortable with that type of scenario

Will irreparable harm occur to the Canadian Forces, and will the CF be able to properly defend Canadian interests?
Can the roles of these platforms sufficiently be taken on by surviving systems such that the issues in question 1 can be sufficiently addressed?

In the above scenario there is the chance you could lose 3 ships, so the answer to that the remaining systems can't cover that role. 

Could this decision have been taken any other way?
Self explanatory, but just in case ... should there have been consultation, with who and how extensive should the consultation have been? What factors ought the MND take into consideration in making this type of decision.

Personally I am hoping(read praying) its DNDs way of telling the govermentgovernmentup and put the required funding into DND       

 

[Cloud Cover]

the hypothetical is excellent. Noted. thx.

Next?

 

[CDNBlackhawk]

Maybe i am Naive but i cant see the government getting rid of more and more equipment, IE:Ships, Jets etc.. just to come up with the money for 5000 more troops.
I can see the Government either comming up with more funding to do this or simply just not follow through on their campain promise's

The simple fact is, the GOV is going to have to start putting some major money back into the CF's or we wont have a CF's in 20 years.

With equipment starting to become Obsolite, Major changes and funding is needed now more then ever, not to mention the CF's are very under staffed.

But like all other Liberal governments in recent years, things dont look good

 

[Garbageman]

By no means am I a sea power expert, so I'm wondering, if the 280s are gone, could there be some kind of expanded role given to the Victoria classes coming online?  I know they have radically different roles, but is there any overlap in terms of force protection (certainly not air defence, but what about surface & subsurface threats)?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The 280s provide Command and Control (flagship). medium range air defence(with SM2 Standards), limited ASuW(with the 76mm and SM2), and ASW (using the 2 CH124 (although only 1 is usually embarked). Beyond the ASuW and ASW that the Victorias can provide it does not overlap or come close in making up for the gap that getting rid of the 280s would cause. We would lose those capabilities until the next generation of surface combantant comes online.

Look at the capabilities the navy has loss in the past few years. This is off the top of my head.
1) Carrier aviation
2) Naval gunfire support (NGS)--57mm and 76mm are not powerful enough to support troops ashore.
3) Sea lift (maybe fixed by the JSS)
4) Mine warfare (yes I know we have the Kingston class MCDVs but with only X number of minesweeping modules do we actually have that capability?)
5) Submarines (look at the problems we are having wuth the Victoria class- we haven't really gained it back).

 

[DJL]

How serious is this threat of platform deletion to Canada and her citizens at home and abroad, and the Canadian Forces deployed overseas?          i.e. Is there a probablity that the CF may not be able to defend citizens from attack. or rescue citizens overseas if the need arises? If deployed  operationally, are Canadian Forces members going to be exposed to additional risk or enhanced threat?

IMHO (and I'm sure a number of others share this), the current ability for the CF to "defend citizens from attack. or rescue citizens overseas" is negligible, and if this was further decreased, I'd hazard a guess that some could find the Liberals in a state of mens rea.

Will irreparable harm occur to the Canadian Forces, and will the CF be able to properly defend Canadian interests?
Can the roles of these platforms sufficiently be taken on by surviving systems such that the issues in question 1 can be sufficiently addressed? 

At no fault of their own, the CF is currently hard pressed to defend Canadian intrests, subtracting form the CF's current capabilities will only make mater's worse.

Could this decision have been taken any other way?
Self explanatory, but just in case ... should there have been consultation, with who and how extensive should the consultation have been? What factors ought the MND take into consideration in making this type of decision.

PM PM shouldn't have committed to anything during his election campagain without full consultations with DND. If he needed to throw out a "bone", perhaps he should have been more vague in the capabilities that he intended to bring forth and more specific on the "planned increased funding". (ie. level of)

Maybe i am Naive but i cant see the government getting rid of more and more equipment, IE:Ships, Jets etc.. just to come up with the money for 5000 more troops.
I can see the Government either comming up with more funding to do this or simply just not follow through on their campain promises

What will PM PM's "Peacekeeping Brigade" cost? What will CADRE and twenty hypothetical Joint Strike Fighters cost?

IMV, if the Navy loses the 280s and the Air Force loses a tactical fighter squadron now, why would we need to purchase new destroyers and fighters in the future?

 

[condor888000]

2) Naval gunfire support (NGS)--57mm and 76mm are not powerful enough to support troops ashore.

Out of curosity, does any navy have any large deck-mounted guns?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Only what I just stated above 57mm &76 mm..plus the 40mm on the MCDVs but these are medium caliber weapons.

 

[Green Lid]

Kirkhill

You asked for my thoughts, bear in mind I am not an expert in amphibious ops.
If Canada is considering the establishment of such a force,   then I think that it demonstrates a significant shift in thinking at the top.
After all setting up such a force from scratch is not something you do on a whim!!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

What I really think we need to do is to work at retaining the capabilities we have, work at improving them and then start to add more. We can't afford to give up any more.

 

[DJL]

Instead of starting a new thread, I thought I'd bring this one back from the grave.......


Does anybody know the current status/life expectancy of the 280s, and what the status of CADRE is?

Or (in both cases) is this something that nothing will be known about untill the defence review is completed?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Looks like the 280s will be extended to about the 2012-15 time frame. The replacements for the 280s will come any time after that in the common surface warfare combatant which is the replacement for the 280s and the CPFs. The first 4 will most likely be flagship and area air defence ships. Of course things may change....

 

[DJL]

Has there been any serious studies into this "new common surface warfare combatant" (ie size, hull form, capabilities etc)?

Also, what would the chances be that we could be part of joint program with other nations that share the same need? Just off hand, I'd think that the Dutch, Germans, Spanish and Australians could make suitable partners for developing a next generation surface combatant.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Sorry what I have said is about all I can really say on the project.

 

[DJL]

No problem. 

 

[Inch]

I heard they're going to be replaced with this bad boy. Eat lead Osama!  ;D