Sinking the navy

[aesop081]

I'm aware that many other militaries, including the Royal Navy with their single amphibious task group based around HMS Ocean also have smaller amphibious capabilities compared to that of our American neighbors. Now I ask you, is it really cost effective to spend more money on building the ships and recruitng the crews for these task groups when having rapidly deployable, air-liftable Army troops/airborne units can do the job? 

I'm not saying that one should always emulate the  joint US Air Force and US Army capability when it comes to deploying a ready brigade of an airborne division anywhere in the world within a a matter of two days...but from the way I see it, more transport planes, airborne tankers and more paratrooper units would be less costly for a nation like us than having more costly amphibious ships, their escorts and the accompanying supply train, which is a luxury of a much larger power.

Cougarking, again allow me to point out a few things to you.

Airborne forces are about more than cargo planes and paratroops.  Your Lebanon example is a poor one.  NEO operations are rather simple.  But what if the country where you wish to deploy these airborne forces does not wish for those forces to be there ? Does the acronym IADS ring a bell ? Would you have us send in those brand spanking new CC-177s full of troops in without SEAD assets ? I doubt that Canada could afford whats needed to do an oposed airborne operation on its own. So to adress your concerns over costs of a naval task group, do not be fooled into thinking that having a deployable parachute capability ( that is effective that is) is any cheaper.

 

[CougarKing]

Cougarking, again allow me to point out a few things to you.

Airborne forces are about more than cargo planes and paratroops.  Your Lebanon example is a poor one.  NEO operations are rather simple.  But what if the country where you wish to deploy these airborne forces does not wish for those forces to be there ? Does the acronym IADS ring a bell ? Would you have us send in those brand spanking new CC-177s full of troops in without SEAD assets ? I doubt that Canada could afford whats needed to do an oposed airborne operation on its own. So to adress your concerns over costs of a naval task group, do not be fooled into thinking that having a deployable parachute capability ( that is effective that is) is any cheaper.

I appreciate your input. I was aware Canada's ability to do an opposed airborne operation is rather limited now, since we don't have many options for overseas bases from which to launch escorts for those CC-177s and a limited air-to-air refuelling capability without relying upon our allies.

 

[aesop081]

CC-177s and a limited air-to-air refuelling capability without relying upon our allies.

I sugest you go read Globemasher's comments on AAR for our CC-177s in the " will the C-17s make it to the ramp" thread.  IIRC, this is not a capability we will have.

 

[CougarKing]

As for the argument of shutting down the navy and using the money for extra troops, and planes is that those things need airspace clearance and staging areas near the AOO to get the things done. The Amphib Ready group gets around all that because of the freedom of the seas.

FSTO,

With all due respect, never did I say in either of my posts that we should "shut down" the navy. We need a surface navy to protect the sea lanes- you have no argument from me about that. I was only questioning the feasibility of mantaining just one amphibious task group based around a single  assault carrier.  Having 2 of these assault carriers might be a better idea for meeting the contingency availability requirement...if we can get the budget for a second one.

As for the airborne ops, I already conceded it was a bad idea for our current force due to the reasons cdnaviator already pointed out.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just out of curiosity, is there in increasing consensus that BHS should be an LHD/LHA vs LPD (which my recollection was the original concept)?


Matthew. 

 

[aesop081]

FSTO,

With all due respect, never did I say in either of my posts that we should "shut down" the navy. We need a surface navy to protect the sea lanes- you have no argument from me about that. I was only questioning the feasibility of mantaining just one amphibious task group based around a single  assault carrier.  Having 2 of these assault carriers might be a better idea for meeting the contingency availability requirement...if we can get the budget for a second one.

As for the airborne ops, I already conceded it was a bad idea for our current force due to the reasons cdnaviator already pointed out.

Cougarking, the premiss behind all this is that the Navy, without AORs cannot put a task group to sea for very long.  This is not only an issue for amphib ops but basic blue water operations. Without AORs the Navy is restricted to short-range and litoral operations or to depend on other navies to do its job.  While we can use allied AORs, this restricts the Canadian government's freedom of action in international affairs.

 

[CougarKing]

Cougarking, the premiss behind all this is that the Navy, without AORs cannot put a task group to sea for very long.  This is not only an issue for amphib ops but basic blue water operations. Without AORs the Navy is restricted to short-range and litoral operations or to depend on other navies to do its job.  While we can use allied AORs, this restricts the Canadian government's freedom of action in international affairs.

Yes, I  did read the article and previous page before replying to FTSO's "shutting down the navy" comment. Taking HMCS Protecteur and her sister ship out of service without an immediate replacement would be a bad idea; as would be taking 6 Auroras out of service just for the sake of budget cuts to free up money for other priorities.

 

[FSTO]

Just out of curiosity, is there in increasing consensus that BHS should be an LHD/LHA vs LPD (which my recollection was the original concept)?


Matthew.   

My personal pref is a flat top carrier. The Wasp/Tarawa class are a little much for our needs.

From Schelde (Enforcer 18000)
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

French Mistral
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mistral/

The Spanish one from Navantia that Australia is looking at
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LHD_Navantia_lg.jpg

Right now only the Mistral in actually in the water.

 

[TAS278]

My personal pref is a flat top carrier. The Wasp/Tarawa class are a little much for our needs.

I concur. We don't even have the man power to crew/fill them.. It would simply be another naval money hole.