The CF regular troop strength is 62,300 in 2004 and reserve's are 23,000 personnel of all ranks, respectively and is ranked 60th in the world in terms of the ratio of troops to population. In addition, the Canadian Rangers, a force of about 4,000 mostly aboriginal reservists, provide the only military presence in many Arctic areas.
Canadian Amphibious Plan
- Thread starter pepsi
- Start date
Pursuit Curve
New Member
pepsi said:
The plan is to be able to transport resouces to trouble spots that would otherwise require leasing heavy air lift from other countries. It is the need to be able also to deploy forces to be able to defend a large coast line ( Canada ) and to also be able to contribute to international ops as part of caolitions etc etc.
Pursuit Curve
New Member
Pepsi, it all makes sense to me, we cannot rely over and over again on civillian contractors or other Air Forces to transport our people and equipment.
Also the term "Amphibious" is a double edged sword, when there are no port facilities then you have to go amphib, whether that is because of natural disasters or military purpose. Also what are the attack helicopter referred to in the main article? Unless of course Canada is in the market for Attack Choppers!
For the strategic needs of Canada, namely the Arctic, having these ships would be a great thing, it would mean that we could position troops and infrastructure where we need then, with out the need for air fields.
Also our humanitarian mission and UN missions would be greatly enhanced, as it would buy us some respect from partners that otherwise have to make room for us on their C141's and C17's, or any Antonov's that are for lease.
Also the term "Amphibious" is a double edged sword, when there are no port facilities then you have to go amphib, whether that is because of natural disasters or military purpose. Also what are the attack helicopter referred to in the main article? Unless of course Canada is in the market for Attack Choppers!
For the strategic needs of Canada, namely the Arctic, having these ships would be a great thing, it would mean that we could position troops and infrastructure where we need then, with out the need for air fields.
Also our humanitarian mission and UN missions would be greatly enhanced, as it would buy us some respect from partners that otherwise have to make room for us on their C141's and C17's, or any Antonov's that are for lease.
stephen weist
New Member
Pursuit curve, I think you missed the boat on the artic deployment. other than a few short weeks in the artic summer, the coast up there is not available due to ice. The only thing that can deploy troops up there would be aircraft(weather permitting), and the only other platform that could have any influence would be air independent subs. As the posibility of intruders is slim, I do not think the government looks at the northern coast as something to spend defence dollars on.
Pursuit Curve
New Member
Stephen, no I did not miss the point on artctic deployment, the one reason I brought that point up originally was that the current Canadian Warship Designs are without the strenthened hulls to be able to operate in arctic conditions, something that other Navies currently have, also a sea lift capability enables equipment and supplies as well as manpower to be pre positioned in optimal time periods.
With the further opening of Northern passages due to accelerated Ice melt, there is alot of traffic up there by nations eager to get at the resources that are there.
So in conclusion the Canadian Military has to have the abiblity to be able to deploy, The Amphibious capability will assist in getting equipment to areas where there are no ports or landing fields, you can get equipment theer to build landing fields and infrastructure, but only through sea lift.
With the further opening of Northern passages due to accelerated Ice melt, there is alot of traffic up there by nations eager to get at the resources that are there.
So in conclusion the Canadian Military has to have the abiblity to be able to deploy, The Amphibious capability will assist in getting equipment to areas where there are no ports or landing fields, you can get equipment theer to build landing fields and infrastructure, but only through sea lift.
stephen weist
New Member
Pursuit curve, what would you be pre positioning for, the attack of the Nunavut. And any epuip the canadian forces uses can be airlifted. and ice capable ships are the least of the navys worries.
Pursuit Curve
New Member
Stephen, they are worries when in recent excersises Canadian warships were concerned about ice they had to decrease speed and could not maneuvre with safety. Also if you think that the North does not have the interest of other countries for exploitation of our natural resources because of attitudes like the one that you just posted, then I think that bodes well for my point.stephen weist said:
I am certain that Canada will acquire LPD's at some point. It would make more sense to acquire a LHD, but lets face it, the CF are starved. If we operated an LHD, we'd need attack choppers, medium lift helis, landing craft, etc. We cant even afford to keep our ships sailing.
The Tories say they want to purchase helicoptor carriers, but remember, it was mulroney that talked all that rhetoric about maintaining a credible military, while at the same time he began the process that ruined the Canadian forces.
The Tories say they want to purchase helicoptor carriers, but remember, it was mulroney that talked all that rhetoric about maintaining a credible military, while at the same time he began the process that ruined the Canadian forces.
For canada too buy large 2 LPD/H makes a lot of sence, in that, the world is moving toward the experdistonary warfare. so since the candanians are always involved, I mainge is a good choose for them, hell, they could even buy a few F-35B and put them on there for CAS/sea control duties (okay i may be getting too ambious on that but look at what the italian Cavour really is?)
Moreover, there a real move toward wheeled (meduim) AFV's within canada, therefore, they will be able to carry more vechicels and kill more people, i mean enforce the peace.
nfloorl:
Moreover, there a real move toward wheeled (meduim) AFV's within canada, therefore, they will be able to carry more vechicels and kill more people, i mean enforce the peace.
nfloorl:I guess there has been a trend for Canada to move out of the Peace Keeping business over the past decade into more combat orientated areas, which has exposed the lack of funding. If Australia can go for two LPHs then Canada should be able to have a similar capability, backed up by two LPDs such as the Enforcer.
I agree, 2 LPD, 2 LPH, you realyl would not need a whole lot more. I also agree off the shelf design like enforce/ bay class makes sence. With Halifax and the anti air warfare ships, you'd have a nice little task force there..
Is there a requirment for seperate LPD's with the canadian navy ?
Is there a requirment for seperate LPD's with the canadian navy ?
I would love for Canada to buy 2 LPH and 2 LPD's. However if we were to do so we likley would be split them into at least two task groups.
I just don't see any governemnt in this country doing that anytime soon. The conservatives would likely buy a couple LPD's such as Rotterdam or lease San Antonio's (I hope not.
I just don't see any governemnt in this country doing that anytime soon. The conservatives would likely buy a couple LPD's such as Rotterdam or lease San Antonio's (I hope not.
It is nice to dream but what Canada really needs is a defence policy that give's our military a defined mission. We have had goverment after goverment that has given our troops the very short end of the stick when it comes to money and support and no clear cut direction. All this talk about LPH'S and LHD's is a nice thought but impractical as the Canadian Armed Forces do not have the capibility to make these types of ships effective. We as a country can not spend less than 4% of our GDP ( Canada's est GPD for 2004 was $1.023 Trillion... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html but only spent $ 13 Billion on defence ) and expect to rebuild our forces in such a way as to make these types of purchases practical. Canada and Canadians needs to get its act together and give our armed forces a clearly defined purpose then give them the money and equipment to do it, not just LPH's but new AFV, Aircraft ( both airlift and fighter ), increase troop strength and also money for logistical support which is the weakest link in the Canadian Armed forces today. Buy LPH's or LHD's but lets make sure we have an armed forces that can use such ships effectively.
THe san antonio's will be rather exspensive, the enforcer (16000T) class wouls be an excellent choose, of course, these can be fitted with fairly large hangers also, so if you were to buy more than two, maybe, a LPH will not be needed. Its needed, I am talking for a budget perspective.JAF said:
If there was a conservative governemnt elected (Regrettably a big if) Than I would say we could feesabley have an order in the next 4-5 years. :unknown
If the Liberals are re-elected:shudder ...sometime between never and when hell freezes over...
We need sea lift. We also need a long list of just about everything so I just don't see LPD's winning out over new AOR's for the navy, new AAW platforms, new LIFT for the airforce and more LAV III's for the army.
To directly answer your question about AAW platforms. Now would be a great time, however probably 8-10 years away for that. Again there's just too many things on the list.
If the Liberals are re-elected:shudder ...sometime between never and when hell freezes over...
We need sea lift. We also need a long list of just about everything so I just don't see LPD's winning out over new AOR's for the navy, new AAW platforms, new LIFT for the airforce and more LAV III's for the army.
To directly answer your question about AAW platforms. Now would be a great time, however probably 8-10 years away for that. Again there's just too many things on the list.
Jaf I meant by defined mission was give the CF a clear understanding of what our goverment wants from them . We seem to elect goverments that like to flip flop on defence policies far to often. I am not in the military but I think we have some of the finest troops in the world and we have proven our ability to fight more than once over the years and with the right direction and right equipment our forces are hard to beat. You maybe right Jaf about the LPD improving our ability to do some of the missions we are task to undertake, I don't know much about what the capibilities of a LPD or LHD so you may very well be right, just want to make sure we do not put the cart before the horse.
. We seem to elect goverments that like to flip flop on defence policies far to often. I am not in the military but I think we have some of the finest troops in the world and we have proven our ability to fight more than once over the years and with the right direction and right equipment our forces are hard to beat. You maybe right Jaf about the LPD improving our ability to do some of the missions we are task to undertake, I don't know much about what the capibilities of a LPD or LHD so you may very well be right, just want to make sure we do not put the cart before the horse.