Save Money and Get a Big Ship

[MTShaw]

I attended a lecture given by Gwynne Dyer a number of years ago and Dr. Dyer surmised that any big conventional war today would involve the powers that be lobbing missiles at each other with everyones high tech tanks, ships and planes destroyed after about two weeks.

After that, warfare would revert to something like what we saw in WW1 with every side equipped with relatively lowtech weaponry but able to be produced en masse.  I can't help but think he was/is right.

Mr. Bogart,

Was that lecture possibly captured on video?

Michael

 

[Cloud Cover]

Sure, of course there aren't 1000 sailors +++ marines and aircrew, thats why this whole thing is a "what if" even if it was a Canberra class or a Banana class (and I doubt the heads on a Canberra class can handle 1000 Diggers for much more than a week).

The point being, if the "political will" was ever present to do something like that in Canada, is a limited LHA/LPD ship of limited capability the way to go, or a hybrid aircraft carrier "like" the the America class* the better theoretical option (again, considering that no such ship, whatever size, is ever going to be an actual option for Little Canada).   

To be clear, I'm not in favour of any type of ship like this for the RCN (ever), but I don't see the point of considering half arsed little ships pretending to be in a league in which they are out-classed from the start, regardless of what oceanographic region that we pivot towards. 

I think the Japanese are seeing that problem with their new concepts of potentially operating the F35B off the Izumo class and considering that at a "mere" 27,000 tons it is too small for the growing purposes for which they apparently now have the political will attributed to them: "....The government and the LDP envision deploying refitted Izumo carriers with F-35Bs to the southwest, where they could respond quickly to problems in such areas as the Senkaku Islands, which are administered by Japan and claimed by China as the Diaoyu,” ...

Similarly, somehow I don't see South Korea being content with its new Dokdo LPD once they start flying operations.**

Anyway,  just a thought experiment, wondering if political will/ (modest needs + modest means) = 20,000 tons of "showing up" or 45,000 tons of "being there." 

Also, with Australia, Korea, Japan, India and the US operating many types of LHA, LPD, and half of the USN CVN's in the Pacific, why do we need to pivot that way at all?? Our economic interests are already militarily covered by others.


* https://thediplomat.com/2014/04/does-the-us-navy-have-10-or-19-aircraft-carriers/ 

** https://archive.is/fuJZP

 

[Journeyman]

.... the Pacific, why do we need to pivot that way at all?? Our economic interests are already militarily covered by others.

And that, sadly, is the true Canadian way.    :not-again:


Unfortunately, our Asian/Pacific interests are increasingly undermined by a dilettante political leader whose behaviour saw him being ignored in Asian trade meetings and mocked in India -- a situation made worse by erratic and potentially unreliable US leadership -- neither of which fit well in a Navy procurement thread (which is outside of my lane, so I'll leave the Boaty McBoatface discussions to those who know what they're talking about....and the other, inevitable, usual suspects who just like making posts ).

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And defines how you can tell you are someone else's colony.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Here's why a country like Canada goes with a Mistral or  Ocean (or, my actual preference, a Canberra class):

America class: 1060 friggin sailors to operate the damn thing - to carry 1850 Marines. Where is Canada going to find 1060 extra sailors?? Or the Army 1850 soldiers for that matter.

Mistral or Ocean: Navy crew: respectively 160/285 to carry respectively 450/830 "marines".

Which is why my preference is the Canberra class: 360 Sailors/Air group (sailors alone: 230) to carry  a little over 1000 army personnel when need be.

Bonus: Great potential for inter-service postings with our R.A.N. brethren to exchange lessons learned in the class and participate in multi-units EX and OP, leveraging the commonalities from both services to reach higher capabilities than if acting alone.

Anyone done a costing between the Mistral and Canberra? Either way, having such ships is like having the C-17's, Canada can contribute to many types of missions, gaining international brownie points at little political risk. The political benefits of such ships in foreign diplomacy and international cooperation is so huge, I am bewildered by way the Libs did not push for a these and another Resolve AOR. One of these carriers, new AOR and 1 escort could be the nucleus of any sort of international task force. Park them off Somali to support other nation ships and have a QRF from another country on board the Carrier and you will be able to support the whole operation, while the other nations do all the interactions.

 

[jollyjacktar]

My choice would be for a Canberra class.  I am surprised the Humanitarian Relief capabilities of such as ship wouldn't be appealing to the GoC, especially the one in power right now.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Likely as it means more helicopters needed and we all know how much Liberals love helicopter contracts

 

[Kirkhill]

In addition to helicopters each Big Ship, even with a minimalist civilian crew (20 to 50 Mariners), would require beans, blankets and bandages.  They are, after all, just floating warehouses that can relocate from crisis to crisis.

Warehouses are only useful if there is stuff to go in them.  How are you making out with boots and parkas?

Not to mention, the need for water trucks to manage the "dock to dock" transfer from the "warehouse" to the shore.

And that is for White-painted Humanitarian Vessels - not ones with bullets and tanks and "Attack-Helicopters" on board.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hi I am from Federal Fleet services and I am here to help you...... 

and

Hi I am from Canadian Helicopters and we can help you as well http://www.canadianhelicopters.com/fleet/twin-engine-aircraft/

 

[JMCanada]

While the Canberra is a great ship, I do not believe Canada should enter into that costly vessel:
1.- Should some hundreds of soldiers be deployed by sea somewhere out from CAN, the best option would be along with our US allies: they could embark on their San Antonio, America or Wasp class LHDs / LPDs. Then use our frigates to escort them.
2.- The Canberra is a huge vessel and therefore a big and attractive target for enemies, with the need of at least a couple of well-armed escorts.
3.- Having just one would make it a precious treasure which in case of need the Government (of any colour) would rarely afford to lose. For US losing one LHD/LPD in combat means just one out of a dozen. To be capable to risk such kind of vessel on high-level scenarios, the navy should at least have 3 units (as with battleships in WWI). Otherwise in case of lose the moral impact would be enormous.

Instead I proposed the CSC to be well-armed for escort operations, either in the Atlantic or the Pacific.
Coming back to the beginning of this thread (get a big ship). I have read somewhere that pk (kill probability) of missiles may be in war times as low as in the range of 10-20%, much below that the peacetime tests (60 to 95%). I also consider that the CSCs should return safely to a friendly port.

Based on that I dare to make a proposal (realistic one) for their armament:
- 16 VLS cells for SAM-2/Aster_30 missiles ;  32 for an AAW variant, which could be 5 out of 15 units.
- 8 VLS cells for quad-packed ESSM/CAMM (32 units) ; 16 cells (64 units) for the AAW version
- 8 VLS cells for ASROC missiles for ASW/ defence.
- 8 VLS cells (strike) for either anti-ballistic missiles, long-range ones (like SAM-6) or Cruise (Tomahawk Scalp naval or similar).
This makes a total of 40 VLS cells (64 for the AAW variant). Compared to the vessels already operating in other navies like Type 45, Horizon, Fremm, Zeven Provincien, F-100/Hobart, ... and also those beyond the Pacific ocean, does not seem to be an illusion but realistic possibilities.

On top of this, I would also count on 2x 4 Harpoon canisters or similar (Exocet, Naval Strike missile), one 127mm gun (Mk 45), 2x gun-based CIWS (Phalanx, Oerlikon Millenium or similar) and 1x missile based CIWS (Mistral-Tetral, SeaRam or similar).
Finally I would also include 2 helicopters for the ASW missions, which not necessarily should be 2x Cyclones, but they could be one Cyclone and one AW-159 Wildcat/ NH60 SeaHawk.

Sounds quite reasonable, does not?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I can tellyou with some degree of certainty that Canada would not embark upon a second MH competition, to buy a supplement to the Cyclone fleet, anytime soon, as you propose.

That said, purchasing some type of naval UAV is probably within the realm of the possible.

 

[JMCanada]

You are right, I know. Having a 2nd helo is more a wish than anything else.

But I consider than the 2nd helo for ASW would be almost a MUST for any navy: provides more time a day for searching submarines, higher reliability (if one breaks down, still you have the 2nd while repairing the 1st) and provides support either to cover a wider area or to better locate the SS.

And I find that flying 6.000 kg  (Wildcat) with all its ASW capabilities is more efficient searching the SS than running all time with 13.000 kg on the air.

 

[FSTO]

You are right, I know. Having a 2nd helo is more a wish than anything else.

But I consider than the 2nd helo for ASW would be almost a MUST for any navy: provides more time a day for searching submarines, higher reliability (if one breaks down, still you have the 2nd while repairing the 1st) and provides support either to cover a wider area or to better locate the SS.

And I find that flying 6.000 kg  (Wildcat) with all its ASW capabilities is more efficient searching the SS than running all time with 13.000 kg on the air.

Stop with the second type of helicopter on a frigate/destroyer okay? These size of ships are packed to the hilt already (helicopter support) and having a second aircraft type and the accompanying spare parts is just not feasible. 

You might as well have a Canberra type carrier and carry a dozen helicopters!

 

[Underway]

I can tellyou with some degree of certainty that Canada would not embark upon a second MH competition, to buy a supplement to the Cyclone fleet, anytime soon, as you propose.

That said, purchasing some type of naval UAV is probably within the realm of the possible.

I know for a fact that NETE is working on developing a UXV control system to control multiple types of UXV's from one system.  Flexibility from a single space.  The currently navy UAV is a RQ-20 Puma which I don't know is purchased yet but the contract has be awarded.

 

[Cronicbny]

I know for a fact that NETE is working on developing a UXV control system to control multiple types of UXV's from one system.  Flexibility from a single space.  The currently navy UAV is a RQ-20 Puma which I don't know is purchased yet but the contract has be awarded.

We have Puma on both coasts now. HAT completed out west a few weeks ago. SATs upcoming.

 

[JMCanada]

You might as well have a Canberra type carrier and carry a dozen helicopters!

Actually ... she can embark up to 30 NH-90 helicopters  8)

OK ... I did not think much on spare parts and so, but I would prefer 2 medium helos (same type) in an ASW frigate than only one Cyclone. Could leave Cyclones on other frigates for other purposes as AEW/ASaC.

I did not know about RQ-20 Puma, and for sure it has unique features for Canadian climate, but in order to operate in warmer waters Fulmar has much better capabilities for a similar length and wingspan.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/fulmar-x

 

[Cloud Cover]

I can tellyou with some degree of certainty that Canada would not embark upon a second MH competition, to buy a supplement to the Cyclone fleet, anytime soon, as you propose.

That said, purchasing some type of naval UAV is probably within the realm of the possible.

I'm curious if you are of the opinion that Canada has purchased MH for the next 50-60 years?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

All I can go by is our recent procurement history....

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Actually ... she can embark up to 30 NH-90 helicopters  8)

OK ... I did not think much on spare parts and so, but I would prefer 2 medium helos (same type) in an ASW frigate than only one Cyclone. Could leave Cyclones on other frigates for other purposes as AEW/ASaC.

Asid from the amount of issues that would come from a second helicopter on an ASW frigate...3 questions:

1.  You do know the CH-148 is an ASW helicopter, right?  (I'm not SURE what you'd propose doing with the Cyclone, their gear and crews that are there for ASW)

2.  Where are these "other, non-ASW frigates" coming from in the RCN?  Are we able to put the entire fleet of CPFs to sea now at once?  Do any of our Allies want/need us to do these other tasks and are we 'big' enough for that stuff?

3.  2 types of helicopters for the RCN would require 2 different types of aircrew and maintainers as well.  Where will they come from? 

OK...I couldn't limit it to 3 questions...but it was close.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A modern version of the flying peanut with a dip sonar would be interesting, mount the Mk 48 triple mounts on the AOP's and they could do some ASW if needed, their a target anyways.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvRrv8St2I