Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)

[Sea-dog]

Hi there Infanteer ,
                          I surf on a lot of military sights,never lower yourself to the level of others.Just report matters to your web-master and let him take the required action.
It has been my experience that by not answering you deny the person the luxury of arguing.

Thank you for your kind words of welcome, I feel very at home already ! Most of the members are serious,polite and the discussions focused.
There will always be some serious real soldiers outhere with whom to talk,do not wast your time trying to convince a small group they are wrong.
I have 13 years military experience and you are welcome to chat with me any time

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Our problem Sea Dog is when others read their posts they might consider that information to be correct so when we see posts like this we hit them and hit them hard. As well welcome to the Board.

 

[JBP]

I'm so out of whack then check the FACTS out here: The USN Fact File, that's where I attained my info. Although lastnight I hadn't specifically went to the website and checked my responses over, they were fairly accurate.

Here's the link: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ffiletop.htmlNavy Fact File

The assault carriers (amphib assault) do carry and air detatchment similar to what I mentioned above. WASP class carrier and they DO carry 1800+ marines, as posted on thier website and thier Nimitz class carriers do carry an assortment of aircraft like what someone mentioned earlier. Regardless the # of aircraft listed for Nimitz class carriers is 85, I said 90, you said 80, fair enough. The Nimitz class carriers also cost 4.5Billion each as per the webpage. It doesn't list the cost of the WASP class amphibious assault carriers though... Not sure how much they'd be... 2 Billion?   ???

Folks, check the area on "Surface Ships"...   :

Reason I didn't list our other aircraft is because they cannot shoot down other aircraft, I was speaking specifically about fighters. And yes, they are retiring the F-14D Supertomcats and filling the roles all with F/A-18E/F Superhornet variants! I do know the difference between some CF-18+F/A-18 variants. The F/A-18E/F (New ones) have greater payload (more hardpoints), a higher top speed, longer combat radius and the most advanced avionics possible for thier rollout date.

So according to the United States Navy's FACT sheet, most of what I quoted was correct. I was wrong about the # of people aboard an aircraft carrier though, it is about 5000.   :-X , STILL doesn't equal to our entire Combat Arms. A good portion of it of course but not all of it as someone mentioned before.

Sorry for stirring up all you Navy+Airforce types feathers+gills....  

It's safe to say that with symantics aside, if we had anything with the potential of being an assault carrier, even a small one that could only carry 800-1000 troops with helicopter support. The USA would jump all over us to use it because carrier battle groups or, CBG's are VERY VERY expensive to operate obviously and even though we might not make that big of a difference in combat terms, we'd make a big difference in thier monthly budget!

 

[Island Ryhno]

Here is an Idea, how about instead of Marines we lean towards a Ranger type military, incorporating all combat arms forces into spec ops type brigades. Then we could use the Navy and Air Force for the sole purpose of supporting missions. This is just speculation but most of the combat operations for the past 20 years or so have not had anything to do with a seaborn landing, (grenada or panama??) I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you strip down alot of extras in our forces and had an integrated elite combat arms team, with the navy providing only transport and protection force, and the air force providing only transport and protection (all updated of course) Do we need Subs? Do we need outdated CF-18's? The ridicoulous amount of money spend on those subs alone could have made a huge difference to our ground forces. Maybe I will draw the ire of Air force and Navy ppl but realistically what are we doing with those subs. I'm not sure any terrorist orgs have subs. I'd like to see the multipurpose roll combat arms become reality. Just a rant 

 

[aesop081]

Here is an Idea, how about instead of Marines we lean towards a Ranger type military, incorporating all combat arms forces into spec ops type brigades. Then we could use the Navy and Air Force for the sole purpose of supporting missions. This is just speculation but most of the combat operations for the past 20 years or so have not had anything to do with a seaborn landing, (grenada or panama??) I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you strip down alot of extras in our forces and had an integrated elite combat arms team, with the navy providing only transport and protection force, and the air force providing only transport and protection (all updated of course) Do we need Subs? Do we need outdated CF-18's? The ridicoulous amount of money spend on those subs alone could have made a huge difference to our ground forces. Maybe I will draw the ire of Air force and Navy ppl but realistically what are we doing with those subs. I'm not sure any terrorist orgs have subs. I'd like to see the multipurpose roll combat arms become reality. Just a rant  

I do agree with you that marines are not required.  I do agree with you as well that we are sinking money into our current subs.  But , IMHO, terorism is not the only thing we have to consider when it comes to defense. Do we need outdated CF-18s ? Until we get new fighters the answer is yes.  We need to be able to control our airspace.  If we let the US do it ( as some on this site have suggested) we lose the ability to dictate what goes on in it.  Do we need subs? Once again the answer is yes. We needed subs capable of patroling our arctic waters because others are using them without our permission and they provide training for our ASW forces. Don't get me wrong, i'm not shooting .50 cal in your direction but i beleive that there is more than terorism going on.....to me there is a need to maintain sovereignty.  As well, i do not buy into this "niche role military" idea.

 

[Inch]

Maybe I will draw the ire of Air force and Navy ppl but realistically what are we doing with those subs. I'm not sure any terrorist orgs have subs.

Oh what a happy place you live in. OPSEC forbids me from telling you exactly who has subs, but believe me when I tell you, you'd be in for a shock if you found out who has them. There are lots of them out there and they're not all upstanding citizens of the human race that have them. Terrorists are the latest threat, who's to say that won't change the day we get rid of our ASW capabilities? The world is a dynamic place and just because there's no threat today, tomorrow or even the day after, that doesn't mean we should start shedding capabilities to save money because it will come back and bite us.

The best way to kill a sub is with another sub, the second best way is an Anti-Submarine helicopter.

Whether or not we see the effects of submarines everyday should have no bearing on whether or not we should get rid of the capability. Stop for a minute and think, maybe the reason there hasn't been any sub attacks or incidents is because of the ASW assets that we have. That's like saying, well there hasn't been any murders in the past year in Thunder Bay, so why do we still need cops? The point is that ASW assets are a deterant to any aggressive postures that potential enemies (both surface and subsurface) may take.

 

[Horse_Soldier]

Maybe I will draw the ire of Air force and Navy ppl but realistically what are we doing with those subs. I'm not sure any terrorist orgs have subs.

Terrorist orgs may or may not have subs - but countries that support terrorists, or whose military is sympathetic to them do... Iran and Pakistan come to mind immediately.  Plus there is that large number of surplus Russian subs sitting in places like Murmansk...  So it is hardly beyond the realm of the conceivable that terrorist orgs might acquire or borrow a sub to, say, sink a cruise ship or three or depending on the ordnance they get, send a few missiles hurtling towards targets we'd rather they don't hit.

 

[Island Ryhno]

I wasn't suggesting that we save money, I was suggesting that we redirect money into the Army more than the other branches. And perhaps I do live in a magical world BUT let's just imagine for a minute that someone does decide to attack us with subs, do we have enough power to stop any of the major powers in the world with our Navy. I understand the complexities of the world, I wasn't trying to imply that we only have to worry about terrorists, that is our major concern right now. If China were to come knocking on the door with subs could we stop them, I don't know, I'm not in the Navy or have access to that info, my guess is no. The point of my post is that we are an army based force, we do Peace Keeping or Security force missions with our armies, not our subs or cf 18's. I think that if we are going to have those things they should be up to date. Is there a viable reason to have subs ? perhaps but at their cost we could have some pretty impressive upgrades in our current forces.

 

[JBP]

We may not need Marines but we sure as hell do need CF-18's and submarines regardless...

Nations like Finland and Iceland etc... Have been disputing Artic territories with us for years, also, with the melting of the artic region there is a very large (possible) traversable route. We need to maintain soverignty (sp?) in this area to ensure only allies/allowed groups are traversing our coasts and waterways.

As Inch said, more countries have subs than we'd probably even be happy to know. I bet there has been submarines all up and down our coasts at one time or another, just to see if they can. Maybe not with the USA defending the coasts with thier sub fleets etc. I'm not knowledgeable in the maritime partol area of things...

Regardless, we need subs and destroyers+frigates+fighters. Not just land forces or JUST surface ships.. We need everything we've got and more of it...

 

[Inch]

If China were to come knocking on the door with subs could we stop them, I don't know, I'm not in the Navy or have access to that info, my guess is no.

There is an entire thread on Submarines in the Navy/Joint forum, so my apologies for the hijack of this thread.

A submarine war isn't fought 100m apart in formed ranks. All you need is one sub in the area and it'll change all your plans with respect to traversing and operating in said area. If you don't know where it is, it can be anywhere and everywhere.

Have a read of this and if you've got anymore questions relating to Subs and their capabilities, feel free to ask.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/23673.0.html

 

[Danjanou]

As far as I know this is not violating OPSEC as it happened 10 years ago, but you'd be surprised who has subs. Ten years ago I was down in Colombia. My last day there the front page on the local papers was a picture of an old Soviet diesel sub ( can't remember the class) that was being used by the cartels to smuggle drugs and that the Colombian navy had captured.

Now from what I've seen of it and any of the Navy types can contradict me, the Colombian Navy is not really that good. The Atlantic/Caribbean squadron I saw based in Cartagena was mostly a collection of WWII era US destroyers, landing craft and smaller vessels. (Their Marine Infantry though are first rate IMO). It begs the question that if they caught one, how many more were/are the cartels running?

Good working subs are an important part of our overall defence package.

BTW I find it ironic there Island Ryhno that with your capbadge you would be so against marines and naval ops. The RNFLDR are the closest this country has ever had to a Naval Infantry/Marine type unit. I would suggest that you study a little Regimental History prior to releasing the safety and shooting from the hip.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is another aspect to this debate.  While the Marines have come to be Amphibious Assault specialists and thus are known for charging up beaches, traditionally Marines were security detachments on ships, conducting small raids and boardings in.  This doesn't require a vast amount of specialized kit.

But more to the point is the discussion about "Sea-Basing".  This is not Amphibious Assault.  This means keeping your comms, logistic support and rest and recuperation area at sea.  The Americans used the Carrier Kitty Hawk as a base for their SOF types in Afghanistan, the Brits used one of their Invincibles along with Ocean for a similar task.  In a small way Canada did something similar in Somalia with the AOR out there.

The difference in requirements between Amphibious Assault and Sea-Basing is considerable.  The Americans are considering basically using standard freighters with a flat deck on top as one option.

Canada could go along way to meeting a Sea-Basing requirement with a mix of Multi-Role Vessels of the type New Zealand is buying (8000 tonnes, ~60 crew, 285 passengers, helo deck, boat launch facility, ice-strengthened, 90 MCAD a copy),  Bay Class / Enforcer Class LSDs of the type operated by Brits, Dutch and Spanish (16,000 tonnes, 60-120 crew, up to 400 land staff and support personnel, 700 troops, 4 Cormorants, 33 Leopards or 133 LAVs at around 180 MCAD) each and maybe a RoRo or two.

The MRVs would be admirable for Sovereignty work in the Arctic as well as supplying a command platform on foreign ops while the LSDs would serve as equipment transport, hospital, maintenance facillity, recuperation centre, and if necessary a troop transport.   Both would have roles in Humanitarian Crises.   3 MRVs and 2 LSDs would set us back the princely sum of 450 MCAD and would require about 300 crew for the lot.    

If we were to take that out of the JSS project funding of 2.1 MCAD  it would still leave the Navy 1.65 BCAD for its AOR replacement project and about 300-400 regular crew.  Crew numbers might need to be bumped a bit or filled out with Reservists.

But having a Sea-Basing capability for our Regular Army types, to support missions in far-flung places, should not be a budget killer.  And, at the same time we provide a useful Humanitarian Aid capability that can be used at home as well as supplying a Sovereignty Support capability.

And like Inch with the subs, I too don't wish to hijack the thread but there are also threads on the JSS and Amphibious Vessels in the Navy forum.  However in this case Marines/Soldiers need ships to get there.

 

[FSTO]

Well, maybe it would be better if all we had were Marines. Lets look at the American Marines, they have an army, an air force, and a navy all tied into one. I think it would be perfect if Canada did something like this, and it would be cost effective too. Integrating everything into one service would be alot better. We would also not need as many personel. With the mantality "Every Marine a Rifleman" would also weed out any softies from our forces.

(exuse me if this has been mentioned before)
Okay, I would like to clear up a misconception that is very prevelant in Canada regarding the relationship between the US Navy and USMC. The US Navy owns the USMC, and the USN reports to the Sec of the Navy. The marines are part of the Navy. The Amphibious Assault Carriers such as USS IWO JIMA, BATTAN et all are crewed by USN pers and the Marines are landed by them. The LCAC (air cushioned craft) are crewed by sailors.
If we had marines, they would be owned by the Navy, end of story.

 

[Infanteer]

(exuse me if this has been mentioned before)
Okay, I would like to clear up a misconception that is very prevelant in Canada regarding the relationship between the US Navy and USMC. The US Navy owns the USMC, and the USN reports to the Sec of the Navy. The marines are part of the Navy.

Not to be a nit-picker, but doesn't the Department of the Navy own both the US Navy and the US Marine Corps?   It may not seem like much, but I think it is because both are independent branches subordinated to the same civilian department (DofN).   So, technically, the US Navy doesn't own the Marines, and there are no Admiral's in the C-of-C giving orders to the USMC - the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps are peers.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/organization/org-sec.html

If we had marines, they would be owned by the Navy, end of story.

Well, since we are a unified force, they would technically be owned by the Canadian Forces, wouldn't they?    

I say this because I've often wondered how such a unit would be handled in our unified system.   The Navy would sure have the input for the seamanship and littoral ops, but the Army would be the one to look to on tactical employment.   As well, they are likely to use Army ranks, command structure, and career structure/courses.   Finally, a formed body of troops is likely going to be fed into the Army's readiness rotation to add more boots to the ground.

Sure the Navy will say "we have Marines", but they will really be a part of the Canadian Forces that would most likely fit under the Army organization.   It is up to us to get over our service-based bias and utilize such a force in a joint fashion under unified command (there was some good to Hellyers changes...)

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Infanteer]

Hi there Infanteer ,
                          I surf on a lot of military sights,never lower yourself to the level of others.Just report matters to your web-master and let him take the required action.
It has been my experience that by not answering you deny the person the luxury of arguing.

Ex-Dragoon and I, while not being the web-masters, are site administrators acting on his behalf.   We are taking the required action.

 

[FSTO]

Not to be a nit-picker, but doesn't the Department of the Navy own both the US Navy and the US Marine Corps?   It may not seem like much, but I think it is because both are independent branches subordinated to the same civilian department (DofN).   So, technically, the US Navy doesn't own the Marines, and there are no Admiral's in the C-of-C giving orders to the USMC - the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps are peers.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/organization/org-sec.html

Well, since we are a unified force, they would technically be owned by the Canadian Forces, wouldn't they?    

I say this because I've often wondered how such a unit would be handled in our unified system.   The Navy would sure have the input for the seamanship and littoral ops, but the Army would be the one to look to on tactical employment.   As well, they are likely to use Army ranks, command structure, and career structure/courses.   Finally, a formed body of troops is likely going to be fed into the Army's readiness rotation to add more boots to the ground.

Sure the Navy will say "we have Marines", but they will really be a part of the Canadian Forces that would most likely fit under the Army organization.   It is up to us to get over our service-based bias and utilize such a force in a joint fashion under unified command (there was some good to Hellyers changes...)

Cheers,
Infanteer

As far as I know there has never been a Marine that has been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the CNO does (for naught of a better term) owns the marines

 

[Infanteer]

Here's the quote from the site I linked to:

"The Department of the Navy consists of two uniformed Services: the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps. "

As you can see, they are two independent Services of equal standing, both representing by their respective Chiefs on the Joint Chief's of Staff.  The Commandant of the Marine Corps reports to the Secretary of the Navy (and his subordinates), not to the CNO.

http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/core/jcs_defn.html

As far as not being a Chairman, I remember hearing that no Marine General has assumed the role of CJCS due to convention.   I see that the evolution of the USMC into an independent Service has been gradual, as the USMC never had a full-time chair on the Joint Chiefs until 1976.   However, now there is no impediment for a Marine not to assume the role of Chairman.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/MRM.htm

 

[FSTO]

Here's the quote from the site I linked to:

"The Department of the Navy consists of two uniformed Services: the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps. "

As you can see, they are two independent Services of equal standing, both representing by their respective Chiefs on the Joint Chief's of Staff.   The Commandant of the Marine Corps reports to the Secretary of the Navy (and his subordinates), not to the CNO.

http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/core/jcs_defn.html

As far as not being a Chairman, I remember hearing that no Marine General has assumed the role of CJCS due to convention.   I see that the evolution of the USMC into an independent Service has been gradual, as the USMC never had a full-time chair on the Joint Chiefs until 1976.  

However, now there is no impediment for a Marine not to assume the role of Chairman.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/MRM.htm

Fair enough but I feel it is still wrong for Canadian commontators to talk about a the Marines as if they are a Navy. Also, if we had marines, it would be more reasonable for us to emulate the Royal Marines instead of the USMC.

 

[Infanteer]

Agreed.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I'm so out of whack then check the FACTS out here: The USN Fact File, that's where I attained my info. Although lastnight I hadn't specifically went to the website and checked my responses over, they were fairly accurate.

Here's the link: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ffiletop.htmlNavy Fact File

The assault carriers (amphib assault) do carry and air detatchment similar to what I mentioned above. WASP class carrier and they DO carry 1800+ marines, as posted on thier website and thier Nimitz class carriers do carry an assortment of aircraft like what someone mentioned earlier. Regardless the # of aircraft listed for Nimitz class carriers is 85, I said 90, you said 80, fair enough. The Nimitz class carriers also cost 4.5Billion each as per the webpage. It doesn't list the cost of the WASP class amphibious assault carriers though... Not sure how much they'd be... 2 Billion?   ???

Folks, check the area on "Surface Ships"...   :

Reason I didn't list our other aircraft is because they cannot shoot down other aircraft, I was speaking specifically about fighters. And yes, they are retiring the F-14D Supertomcats and filling the roles all with F/A-18E/F Superhornet variants! I do know the difference between some CF-18+F/A-18 variants. The F/A-18E/F (New ones) have greater payload (more hardpoints), a higher top speed, longer combat radius and the most advanced avionics possible for thier rollout date.

So according to the United States Navy's FACT sheet, most of what I quoted was correct. I was wrong about the # of people aboard an aircraft carrier though, it is about 5000.   :-X , STILL doesn't equal to our entire Combat Arms. A good portion of it of course but not all of it as someone mentioned before.

Sorry for stirring up all you Navy+Airforce types feathers+gills....  

It's safe to say that with symantics aside, if we had anything with the potential of being an assault carrier, even a small one that could only carry 800-1000 troops with helicopter support. The USA would jump all over us to use it because carrier battle groups or, CBG's are VERY VERY expensive to operate obviously and even though we might not make that big of a difference in combat terms, we'd make a big difference in thier monthly budget!

Sorry Joe I go by the ships I sailed with over the past 11 years so my point still stands. I also showed your response to a USN Commander and I owe him money to dry clean his shirt. If you want accurate info go for Janes.