Canadian Amphibious Plan

[pepsi]

The Canadian navy is drafting a plan to acquire two large amphibious assault ships capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks across the seas.
The idea, which merited a passing reference in last spring’s defence policy statement, is expected to go before the federal Treasury Board next year for consideration, said the director of the navy’s maritime requirements.
“We’re looking at being more engaged on a global scale,†said Capt. Peter Ellis.
“I think it’s a critical requirement, especially if we’re going to conduct operations at short notice.â€
The acquisition of the ships, that can resemble small aircraft carriers, are in addition to the navy’s $2.1-billion project to build three regular supply ships.
As yet, the navy has not come up with a price tag for the landing ships.
Ellis said the amphibious ships and supply boats serve different purposes.
The transports, complete with a detachment of attack helicopters and landing craft, give the army an ability to land on an empty or partially defended beach anywhere in the world.
Regular supply ships require a port to load and unload.
Defence analyst David Rudd said the navy needs to better explain their planned purchase.
“If want to go in this direction and spend quite a bit of money — you would think that the capability would be quite literally leaping off the pages of their defence policy statement,†said Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.
Adding to Rudd’s concern, the federal Conservatives supported the concept of the landing ships in the last election. But Prime Minister Paul Martin dismissed the idea during the televised debate, saying Canadians had a choice between a party that supported health care and one that wanted to buy aircraft carriers.
In April, Ottawa laid out a sweeping new plan for its Armed Forces, promising a better-equipped, more efficient and more effective military at home and abroad — all within five years.
The document, which promises to effectively double Canada’s overseas capability, includes the purchase of new ships, new aircraft and new vehicles.
But even if the project passes the political hurdles, Rudd says he sees potential problems in selecting a design.
The U.S. is constructing a new class of amphibious assault ships called the San Antonio class, but may not commission all of them. Talk within the Defence industry is that two of the yet-to-be constructed ships could be sold to another country, possibly Canada.
Such a move would be another strike to Canada’s struggling shipbuilding industry.
In Rudd’s view it would also be a mistake given the size and complexity of the ships, which require a crew of 300 or more to sail.
Ellis said the navy has not settled on any specific design at this time.

From : http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/459363.html

What are peoples thoughts on this, I was wondering what Canada's amphibous requirements are, over other requirements, i can't think of many areas in their immediate region that would need an amphibious capability of that scale

Although, that said, i can see how the San Antonio class ship that is mentioned in the article would be a better choice than some kind of LHD, as i guess it could fill slightly more roles if needed (although im guessing)

So what are everyones thoughts on that subject, would it be better for Canada to focus on another area of the Navy or Airforce/Army first, or is this decision a good one?

 

[knightrider4]

Interesting. We in Australia are purchasing two LHD ships either a french mistral class or the Spanish strategic projection ship around 27k in tonnage. I think if your going to have these vessels and they are highly capable systems then what you need are quality air warfare system on your escorts otherwise you may be inviting disaster, hence we ordered three Aegis equipped destroyers of around 7k tonnage.

 

[slapshot]

First Canada does not have the means of power projection so why would we even concider this type of purchase. First we would be very hard pressed to even get a dozen of our Leapard 1 MBT to a port let alone put them on a beach and support operations when they got there as our capibility to transport and supply these tanks is very limited even in Canada. Canada had to rely on the United States MAC command to get our lightly equiped troops to Afiganistan as our own heavy air lift capibility is nonexsistent and medium airlift is very limited. If Canada did buy this type of ship how could we supply our troops on a beach in a operation with out a complete upgrade of our air, sea and land lift capibilities and also a complete redistibution of our current basing of the leapard's and ground troops. If we had the proper equipment and bases for such operations in the first place then buying this type of ship would make sence but Canada does not. Another point is Canada wants to replace its ageing fleet of MBT's with Air portable tank destroyers so why buy ships that can transport MBT's when we won't have any in 5 years? Canada needs to be realistic in what we really need in arms purchases and two LHD's is not realistic, maybe a dozen C-17s or IL76's would be a little better choice if we wish to be engaged on a global scale.

 

[alexsa]

Australias two LPHs have proved to be extreamly useful platforms (after a bit of a saga getting them modified for service) in a variety of roles. The San Antonio has a similar function (albeit being a much larger and capable platform) and so maybe this sort of vessel will provide a useful capability boost to Canada. :canada

The simularities between the RAN and the Canadian Navy are pretty close in retorspect noting the RAN lost its dedicated AAW destroyers soon after the LPHs became fully operational. That situation (along with some truely effective LHA/Ds) will hopefully be resolved soon.

 

[JAF]

There is no doubt that the plan is ambitious. However I would argue necessary for the types of missions Canada has and is going to participate in. Peacekeeping and Humanitarian relief will dominate Canada operations in the future. These vessels offer you a capability and flexibility to perform both roles, simultaneously if necessary. In choosing which design I would go with the Spanish LPD which is similar to the Dutch LPD. They have a mission crew of well under 200 (between 124 and 175 depending on the configuration). The Castilla has two command centres, one for amphibious ops and the other for task force command. They are all equipped with full hospitals. Additionally there can me at least superficial common hulls between a LPD and an AOR. Since Canada is in the process of replacing her current AOR’s, this possibility of finding a common hull design (obviously with hugely different interiors) should be examined.

Slapshot, you suggest “maybe a dozen C-17s or IL76's would be a little better choice if we wish to be engaged on a global scale.†While I agree that Canada needs these platforms (C-17’s would be my choice), Aircraft can not replace ships in the ability to transport re-enforced battalion sized battle groups around the globe. Especially when a 12 - 18 C-17 is likely all Canada would ever purchase, if any. Our CDS has stressed (in error I believe) that the renting of airlift is the way to go. Until he is persuaded otherwise the purchase of airlift is off the table.

 

[slapshot]

You have made some intersting points Jaf and I think you are correct that the CAF job will be peace keeping in the future but if it is peace keeping and Humanitarian missions we mostly undertake then these ships are not the right ones for the job. Yes they have a great C&C capability but they are also big targets and as knightrider stated you need quility air defence ships for protection which the Canadian navy alone does not have. Yes we have excellent air defence capabilities on the Halifax class Frigates but they are patrol frigates not air defence warships and as the article that Pepsi posted " The Canadian navy is drafting a plan to acquire two large amphibious assault ships capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks across the seas."

This statment alone tells me the Canadian armed forces do not want a ship of this capibility just for humanitarian and peace keeping missions. They will be for combat operations that our armed forces are ill equiped to undertake. I agree these ship would be a great increase in our capibilities to preform humanitarian missions but heavy long range airlift is a better chioce for this because of the Quick responce time airlift gives you in a disaster that requires humanitarian aid. Don't get me wrong Jaf I would love to see this type of ship in the Canadian navy but it is a premature purchase as we need an across the board increase in capibility such as new heavy/medium lift helicopters, new ships to protect them to make these LHD's really effective in any mission they are called to undertake including combat missions. What the Canadian goverment needs to do is give our armed forces a clear understanding as to what we want our armed forces to do and then we can really know what epuipment we really need to purchase. I just hope the Canadian goverment is not putting the cart before the horse again. C-17's would be my chioce as well

 

[JAF]

The only vessels that can transport “thousands of troops†are LHA’s and LHD’s of the American Wasp and Tarawa class. These vessels are beyond Canada’s financial and manpower abilities by far.

If a government desires to have a “from the sea†assault capability and the current LHD/LHA are beyond your ability to purchase and crew/support, your options are LPD’s type ships.

The current generation of LPD, which are all generally similar: 300-600 troops, 125 – 300 crew and 4-6 x 20 ton helicopters. (I do not consider the San Antonio’s current, they are the lead design for the next generation of LPD)

Any of these vessels would greatly increase Canada’s ability to transport troops, and more importantly equipment around the globe. They would have the additional and practical added capability to assist in Humanitarian and Peace support operations.

Canada will need to replace the Tribal’s with a new generation C4I AAW platform. The purchase of LPD’s would only serve to add to the necessity of doing so.

Slapshot at the risk of sounding repetitive, Aircraft can transport manpower and limited quantities of equipment to an operational area quickly. These forces would need re-supply and additional add on troops in order to maintain a prolonged presence, regardless of why they were there (War, Peace support, Humanitarian). Only ships can carry bulky military equipment in large enough quantities needed to support prolonged operations for
large numbers of troops. To put it bluntly, we do not get involved in short term engagements. The political decision to go usually takes a hek of a lot longer than would the ability of a 20 Kt LPD to circumnavigate the globe. And once we do get involved we are there for a long time. Emergency considerations while a factor do not dictate a large percentage of how and why we get involved globally. So “Quick responses†are good for photo ops but do little in solving the causes that necessitate our intervention in the first place. We need both planes and LPD’s. If I had to choose one, I would go with LPD’s.

Further naval task forces do not require friendly landing strips or adequate shore based support facilities in order to sit off of someone’s coast. For this reason alone they are more flexible if albeit slower than transport aircraft.

 

[slapshot]

Jaf I believe we are in agreement on mostly ever point you make, we need both aircraft and ships and man power to do any type of mission that the CAF is tasked to undertake. My concern is that if we buy LHD's, LHA's or LPD's that we also improve our capibility across the board to make these ships truly effective and that takes money and vision which the Canadian goverment has shown a great lack of both when it comes to the CAF in the last 25 years. As I said I hope this is not a case of the cart before the horse.

 

[knightrider4]

This is an interesting thread for sure. I figure both Canada and Australia's defence forces are roughly similar in capability and structure. Personally I dont have a great deal of time for the San Antonio class of vessels, I imagine them to be very much designed for an American doctrine and niche vessels at that. Fine to purchase as backups to the LHD's but not too good as your primary amphibious system. Down where we are its a rather uncertain strategic situation and therefore the ADF is undergoing something of a transformation and one that is long overdue. I think that the Canadian Navy with its rich traditions deserves the very best the goverment can provide its just convincing those who control the purse strings which is the hard part.

 

[MikMyk]

San Antonio design isn't very peculiar or specific to the US force structure as many other nations have similar types already in service (Rottedam for example). In fact its general enough in terms of capability to accomidate how well the AU and Canadian military does business in terms of deployment. How do you class them as specialized and niche?

 

[gf0012-aust]

One of the aussie members on here was associated with the LHA evaluation. He's indicated that the San Anotinio's were knocked out of contention and as being unsuitable for a number of reasons.

Outside of that brief "throw-away" statement, it's inapprop for me to comment further.

 

[MikMyk]

One of the aussie members on here was associated with the LHA evaluation. He's indicated that the San Anotinio's were knocked out of contention and as being unsuitable for a number of reasons.

Outside of that brief "throw-away" statement, it's inapprop for me to comment further.

Interesting. Thanks for the comment and your credentials :lol3

 

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting. Thanks for the comment and your credentials :lol3

It's definitely not me. The other bloke is a lurker and doesn't always comment even when he's online. He is however more than well placed to comment in light of what he's done and currently does within the ADF.

Sounds a bit vague, but I'm wary of commenting on other peoples behalf.

I'm more comfortable with subs, electronic warfare, ballistics.... skimmers are "targets"

His prev comment was "Actually, in terms of lift ability and aviation, they are less capable than the SPS. The San Antonio class was examined early on but rejected on capability grounds" (SPS = Strategic Protection Ship) ie:

The Strategic Projection Ship will be a 27,000 ton displacement LPH some 231.4m in length, with a beam of 32m and a draft of 7m. It will have a crew of 243 and will be able to carry up to 35 aircraft including STOVL (Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing) with 170 air and ground crew, a staff of 100 and up to 900 troops. The Strategic Projection Ship will be used for air operations, for amphibious operations, expeditionary and humanitarian missions with an anticipated in-service date of 2007, although it could be put back to the First Quarter of 2008.

Although not a full aircraft carrier it is intended to be an operational replacement for the carrier Principe de Asturias when she is being refitted.

There will be two elevators and landing spots for up to six NH 90 size helicopters while the STOVL aircraft, Matador (Harrier) initially and later 10-12 F-35B, will use a 12 degree 'ski jump'. It will have two podded propulsors to give a maximum speed of more than 21 knots and a range of 9,000 nautical miles.

(RINA document)

 

[MikMyk]

Okay makes sense and think I saw the drawings in another thread. Thank you very much.

Will particular units will be assigned on a semi-permanent basis (specialized training similar to USMC ) or will existing units be operating from the new vessel (consistent to what occurs now)?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Okay makes sense and think I saw the drawings in another thread. Thank you very much.

Will particular units will be assigned on a semi-permanent basis (specialized training similar to USMC ) or will existing units be operating from the new vessel (consistent to what occurs now)?

Not sure, but to take a really uneducated guess, and using some of the scuttlebutt that has been surfacing from within the ADF I'd say:

1) Old RAN Fleet air arm squadrons would get re-raised if we go to F-35B, but they will be RAAF pilots (as per RN current philosophy)
2) That modelling will closely reflect USMC behaviour as the RAN/RAAF/Army has a close affinity in operating methods and styles with the USMC.

but, at this stage its just all guess work.

 

[stephen weist]

I think you guys missed the boat on this one. The idea behind this program is not to have the Canadian forces charging off to invade anyone, its to have the capability to move thier own forces to trouble spots without relying on other countries. Canada thru years of defense neglect really doesnt have a credible army and frankly I think they would be hard pressed to handle a domestic uprising(Such as OKA). Land force is down to approx 4,000 troops and of that I think less then 2000 are combat.

 

[JAF]

Stephen I agree totally with you on the real and practical reason for Canada having a sealift capable ship. The only problem I see for Canada is that we need a design that highlights lift more than assault from the sea. This capability (assault) should be included. Small armed forces like Canada need general purpose vessel capable of sealift, assault, command, disaster releif etc. This means cargo space, command facilities, hospital facilities, helicopters and enough space for a re-enforced company of troops or a JTF force to provide immediate presence or evacuation etc. The conclusion I have come to is it would be better in the long run to design a vessel from the keel up to fill such a role. We don't need a ship that can haul 700 guys, we don't have the 700 extra troops to put on them. We need a ship that can perform the above varied duties, with as low manpower requirements as possible. I still see advantages to having similiar hulls, superstructure and engines between the above described vessel and an AOR.

 

[stephen weist]

Bang on, but as long as the government decides what the Military needs, then like any major puchase that has been made for our defence, the troops will end up with, make do ,not, can do equipment.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Land force is down to approx 4,000 troops and of that I think less then 2000 are combat.

I had no idea it was run down that much!

 

[JAF]

Not trying to be disrespectful but I don't think that the Canadian army is down that far yet. The Armed forces comprises of just a hair shy of 60K troops.
10K for the navy. That means there are still 50K for army and airforce. I do not have exact figures but even if they are split 50/50 which I have to beleive the army would actually have more than 50%, than the army is atleast 25K. I would concede that of these 25K, well under 10K are combat arms. Probably in the area of 6-8k.

Now how this relates to the amphibious ships. When I said we do not have the 700 guys, I meant we do not have 700 extra guys free and clear. If we put 700 guys per ship these guys would be taken away from whatever committments they had previously.