Cadredave summed it up pretty well. Also please take the time to read over your posts and correct some of the typos, I don't mean this in an insulting way but they make it difficult to take what you're posting seriously.
Rebuilding a smaller mid sized Navy
- Thread starter moahunter
- Start date
Canada has got a unique opportunity to pretty much replace its entire surface fleet in one go. I agree that rather than a one for one replacement Canada should look at other possibilities.
Having the world's largest navy residing next door ... and fortunately that being an allied navy ... does open up a range of options.
Does Canada really need a large amphibious component for example. I don't really see a strong case. It isn't as though Canada is likely to ever go to war alone, or carry out independent amphibious operations.
Not having Amphibious forces to defend immediately reduces the need for anti air destroyers.
I would build the core of the fleet around general purpose frigates probably around the same size as the current ships. Perhaps even build a class of OPVs based on the same hull as the frigates.
I think 2 or 3 Joint Support Ships to take care of tanking and sealift and you have the basis of a pretty useful medium size fleet.
The most challenging part will be replacing the submarine fleet ... which isn't part of the current shipbuilding plan. In fact I believe that the Canadians want to keep their Victoria class subs until the late 2020's ... which strikes me as being pretty optimistic.
Having the world's largest navy residing next door ... and fortunately that being an allied navy ... does open up a range of options.
Does Canada really need a large amphibious component for example. I don't really see a strong case. It isn't as though Canada is likely to ever go to war alone, or carry out independent amphibious operations.
Not having Amphibious forces to defend immediately reduces the need for anti air destroyers.
I would build the core of the fleet around general purpose frigates probably around the same size as the current ships. Perhaps even build a class of OPVs based on the same hull as the frigates.
I think 2 or 3 Joint Support Ships to take care of tanking and sealift and you have the basis of a pretty useful medium size fleet.
The most challenging part will be replacing the submarine fleet ... which isn't part of the current shipbuilding plan. In fact I believe that the Canadians want to keep their Victoria class subs until the late 2020's ... which strikes me as being pretty optimistic.
Im sorry just read the rules and how could u ever talk about defense issues without having current and background information on the country. For instance, icbms and the early warning system, brought our countries militaries very close... So when i say just let the US take careof ur naval assets, is that not one possible option. Also, not a troll. This and the bbc, besides energy websites(1) i dont normally thread.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One does need relevant current and background information, with the emphasis on relevant. Since ICBM's are not a required or integral part of a naval force, or operated by the RCN (or Canadian Defence Force for that matter...) bringing them up in a discussion on RCN modernization efforts is irrelevant, AKA
fftopic.As for Canada ceding naval matters to the US, Canadian defence objectives are not exactly the same as those of the US. Canada could choose to relinquish control of its maritime approaches, but that is a fundamental step in surrendering sovereignty. After all, what is the chain of command a US force commander will follow, if operating in Canadian waters? Which civilian authority will they accept orders from, Canadian officials or US officials?
-Cheers
Thank you. I will keep that in mind. Thanks againOne does need relevant current and background information, with the emphasis on relevant. Since ICBM's are not a required or integral part of a naval force, or operated by the RCN (or Canadian Defence Force for that matter...) bringing them up in a discussion on RCN modernization efforts is irrelevant, AKA
As for Canada ceding naval matters to the US, Canadian defence objectives are not exactly the same as those of the US. Canada could choose to relinquish control of its maritime approaches, but that is a fundamental step in surrendering sovereignty. After all, what is the chain of command a US force commander will follow, if operating in Canadian waters? Which civilian authority will they accept orders from, Canadian officials or US officials?
-Cheers
Amphibious warfare ships have proven to be the most useful type in an emergency. You don’t need the huge ones the US uses, but a couple of the smaller ones, like the Europeans Mistral, will be a good investment.
And you won’t save on anti-air destroyers unless you also intend to give up on working as a fleet, or doing work in case of war.
Canada does not need a aircraft carrier or amphibious ships, but Canada does need some ASW escorting frigates to help sustain any sea lanes, and a replenishment and sea lift capability to sustain its forces abroad for any mission. Presently I like to see a better sea lift capacity maintained, the other naval missions are in good shape. Canada only needs to maintain a submarine capacity to maintain its ASW escorting capability. Canada also needs to maintain their EEZ patrolling and mine countermeasures capacity as well.
I am not so sure Canada needs to maintain a long range AAW missile capacity as long as Canada maintains a deadly short range AAW missile capability with its escorting frigates. But I would like to see a Mistral or LPD type, not so much geared for amphibious operations but for sea lift operations. Canada has many islands along all its coasts, depending upon air lift may be a mistake. While many of the islands have small populations, Vancouver Island and Newfoundland are well populated. While the commercial ferries will be vital, I see the need for a naval sea lift ship. Whether that ship or ships is multi role or not doesn't matter as long as there is a naval based solution without involving tenders to lease which could take some time which might not be available in an emergency.
Frankly, a larger New Zealand Navy Canterbury design would be very useful, with or without the two landing craft. A ship twice as large with twice the lane meters of a ro ro deck capacity would be a good fit for Canada and not be too expensive. There is no need for a docking well, Canada's army is not geared for amphibious operations. Such a ship would be useful with disaster relief and peacekeeping missions in the Caribbean and Latin America as well.
However, Canada is leaning toward a multi role replenishment ship instead. But it appears such a multi role ship won't be built as the designs for the replenishment ship replacements are looking more and more like a replenishment ship.
I am not so sure Canada needs to maintain a long range AAW missile capacity as long as Canada maintains a deadly short range AAW missile capability with its escorting frigates. But I would like to see a Mistral or LPD type, not so much geared for amphibious operations but for sea lift operations. Canada has many islands along all its coasts, depending upon air lift may be a mistake. While many of the islands have small populations, Vancouver Island and Newfoundland are well populated. While the commercial ferries will be vital, I see the need for a naval sea lift ship. Whether that ship or ships is multi role or not doesn't matter as long as there is a naval based solution without involving tenders to lease which could take some time which might not be available in an emergency.
Frankly, a larger New Zealand Navy Canterbury design would be very useful, with or without the two landing craft. A ship twice as large with twice the lane meters of a ro ro deck capacity would be a good fit for Canada and not be too expensive. There is no need for a docking well, Canada's army is not geared for amphibious operations. Such a ship would be useful with disaster relief and peacekeeping missions in the Caribbean and Latin America as well.
However, Canada is leaning toward a multi role replenishment ship instead. But it appears such a multi role ship won't be built as the designs for the replenishment ship replacements are looking more and more like a replenishment ship.
Given the problems with the Canterbury, in particular its poor sea keeping (see http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/independent-review-safety-hmnzs-canterbury.pdf), that may not be a good choice.
And without the LCMs you might as well just lease a ro-ro freighter, because you cannot load or unload without a dock.
If you don’t have access to protected waters (i.e. a harbor) a well dock provides a controlled environment for transferring cargo to the landing craft, particularly in wet weather. This reduces the time between trips and greatly improves safety relative to loading the landing craft alongside with the cranes or mating up the bow ramp of the LCM to the stern ramp of the Canterbury. Transferring cargo using either the cranes or the stern ramp is questionable in anything above sea state 2.
Canada does not need Amphibs ? Then you say you would like to see a Mistral or LPD ? You do confuse me Toby, on a pretty regular basis ?
Also correct me if I am mistaken, but were you not recently bagging out the NZ's Canterbury in the NZ Navy thread ?
I think the fact that you have contradicted yourself in these statement's lead me to believe you have an inherent lack of understanding of what these ships are designed for and the built in flexibility ?
Well, perhaps when you cherry-pick the parts of Sea Toby's message you wish to quote you see what you only want to see. In fact the entire paragraph after "Mistral or LPD type" is in fact an answer to why he thinks it'd be useful. I understood it to mean they don't need an amphibious assault ship in the conventional role.
Whilst you may feel that it was poorly worded or presented or whatever, I object the idea that he's demonstrated "inherent lack of understanding".
Personally I believe the scenario's he described would suit something like a Bay class but with an additional aviation capacity to be able to embark it's own VERTREP rotary aircraft, looking at the size of the flight deck it looks like there'd be enough room if you built a decent hangar on the fore end of the flight + still maintain something capable of dealing with something Chinook sized.
That being said, don't see why an LPD with huuuge aviation capacity with an impressive stores capacity couldn't fulfull the same roles.
Well you have missed the point, Toby catagorically said in his opening sentence that "Canada does not need a aircraft carrier or amphibious ships" he then advocates for those very types of ships and then goes onto give valid reasons why they would be suitable ?
To me this indicates that he has an inherent lack of understanding of what these types of ships are designed for and what their capabilities are, in one sentence he point blank rules out the ships, then in the next paragraph advocates for them and gives reasons why they need them ?
As far as cherry picking, well......I thought I made my point pretty clear, I was not miss quoting Toby, It was simply to reduce the quote in the two offending statements, to accuse me of "Cherry Picking" is just stupid, the changes in what I have quoted make no difference whatsoever in what I was putting forward and did not put a different spin on Toby's post
The way I took his message was "We don't need dedicated amphibious assault ships for their primary use however they would be useful for sealift operations because of blah blah blah . . .", basically. So it wasn't directly a contradiction, if you look a little more in depth it's not as much a black and white issue as it is on the surface.
The idea of LPDs making extensive use of VERTREP in the case of humanatarian aid isn't impossible. Although personally I would see that as more of a secondary role for an LPD.
From my point of view, how he's explained it makes enough sense to me to be able to understand it and 'get it'.
I may have been out of order with the "cherry picking" statement, and for that I apologise. But when I read it, it did come across as "We don't need X, but X would be useful in circumstance Y for reasons A,B,C" originally to "We don't need X, but we do need X".
Fair enough, point taken in how you view Toby's post, just goes to show how we all read things differently. I suppose the crux of my point is that an LHD although principally designed as an Amphibious Assualt Ship, can also be used for many different purposes, so in the way I read his statement is that he discounts an amphibious ship for is true or main design purpose, but also embraces it because of its inherent capabilities, to me these are conflicting views as they are one in the same ships
Cheers
Yeah, I get what you meanFair enough, point taken in how you view Toby's post, just goes to show how we all read things differently. I suppose the crux of my point is that an LHD although principally designed as an Amphibious Assualt Ship, can also be used for many different purposes, so in the way I read his statement is that he discounts an amphibious ship for is true or main design purpose, but also embraces it because of its inherent capabilities, to me these are conflicting views as they are one in the same ships
Cheers
I do accept that - principally - the main focus of an amphibious assault ship should be what it says in the tin; amphibious assault.I didn't think they were conflicting, a little skewed perhaps, but still sensible though in that the ship is able to function in either roles well enough so whilst it may be a secondary capability it still has the potential to be a more major capability for such a ship if the need came around. Pack it full of solid stores and stuff it to the rafters with ultility helos and away you go
Canada's new program direction?
Great range is not an issue.
The vastness of the coasts make the need for greater numbers (far more numerous) of smaller (less port/harbor requirements and versatile), less-expensive ships, ever more apparent.
Smaller vessels are also more quickly built and in operation sooner.
Smaller type vessel designs achieve great speed. Action, intercept and response is maximized.
Armament is far more specific and reduced in type required, than for other nations.
National security is less of an issue (The USN is allied and complete in it's inclusion of all Canadian seas as primary in it's area of North American Regional responsibility).
Canada's economic zone (the protection of, particularly fisheries) becomes foremost, and suddenly becomes, unlike the U.S. (where it is the sphere of the USCG), within the operational duties of the Formal Navy. This also becomes apparent in the I.D. of foreign vessels approaching and then entering the economic zone in deterrent of (inspection) highly suspect terrorism methods (by maritime vehicle).
The enormous apparatus required by larger, more complex vessels are staggering.
Supply, maintenance, repair, governance of (administration), replacement, replacement equipment, training of crews, standing employment of active duty crews,......the list continues for awhile; all of these issues would be reduced in cost and operational effectiveness, while meeting the requirement of increasing needs. (having sufficient numbers realized and thus in place and in operation).
There is ample and quite obvious reasons why Canada would best benefit from smaller, more numerous, less expensive per unit, smaller-crewed ships.
Great range is not an issue.
The vastness of the coasts make the need for greater numbers (far more numerous) of smaller (less port/harbor requirements and versatile), less-expensive ships, ever more apparent.
Smaller vessels are also more quickly built and in operation sooner.
Smaller type vessel designs achieve great speed. Action, intercept and response is maximized.
Armament is far more specific and reduced in type required, than for other nations.
National security is less of an issue (The USN is allied and complete in it's inclusion of all Canadian seas as primary in it's area of North American Regional responsibility).
Canada's economic zone (the protection of, particularly fisheries) becomes foremost, and suddenly becomes, unlike the U.S. (where it is the sphere of the USCG), within the operational duties of the Formal Navy. This also becomes apparent in the I.D. of foreign vessels approaching and then entering the economic zone in deterrent of (inspection) highly suspect terrorism methods (by maritime vehicle).
The enormous apparatus required by larger, more complex vessels are staggering.
Supply, maintenance, repair, governance of (administration), replacement, replacement equipment, training of crews, standing employment of active duty crews,......the list continues for awhile; all of these issues would be reduced in cost and operational effectiveness, while meeting the requirement of increasing needs. (having sufficient numbers realized and thus in place and in operation).
Last edited by a moderator:
Look at a map. Endurance/range is very much an issue for Canada.
Smaller ships with less range will require a larger number of bases, not just ports, to adequately cover. That means additional personnel and facility costs. The bases need to be in ice free ports.
The number of ships required can be calculated by estimating the number needed on station at any time, then multiplying by the (E – 2 * T – P) / (E * A), where:
E = endurance
T = transit time to station from port
P = Time in port to resupply and perform maintenance.
A = %availability, mostly governed by the time between overhauls/refurbishment, but will also be reduced by the likelihood of a required port being iced up.
Look at the distances involved, and play with it. There will be a minima, but it will not be the same proportionately for Canada as, say the Netherlands.
- Much of maintenance cost is determined by the equipment on the ship, especially the electronics, not the size of the ship.
- Crew savings is mainly realized by moving maintenance to shore facilities and putting it in a separate budget, i.e. hiding it.
- Smaller crews increase the training requirements per person, because each has to capable of doing more jobs.
- Governance/administration is generally a fixed cost per ship.
- You are correct that operational effectiveness would be reduced.
When I use that formula I get a nonsense answer, but it might be a classic case of GIGO
Let's say we need one OPV to look after an EEZ fishing ground around an offshore island group.
Using simplistic thumbsuck numbers:
Endurance = 25 days
Transit time = 4 days
Port time = 25 days
Availabiliy = 0.7 (70%)
That formula says we need a fleet of -0.45714 OPVs - obvious nonsense!
If we increase the number required on station to two the formula says my total fleet must "grow" to -0.91429 still nonsense.
I'm a total noob on naval matters so I'm perfectly willing to accept that the absurdity lies with my hypothetical inputs.
Let's say we need one OPV to look after an EEZ fishing ground around an offshore island group.
Using simplistic thumbsuck numbers:
Endurance = 25 days
Transit time = 4 days
Port time = 25 days
Availabiliy = 0.7 (70%)
That formula says we need a fleet of -0.45714 OPVs - obvious nonsense!
If we increase the number required on station to two the formula says my total fleet must "grow" to -0.91429 still nonsense.
I'm a total noob on naval matters so I'm perfectly willing to accept that the absurdity lies with my hypothetical inputs.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I believe the formula itself is incorrect. I believe the below is a more correct version, though I admittedly do not know if the numbers/ratios are correct.
(E – (2 * T+ P)) / (E * A),
E = endurance
T = transit time to station from port
P = Time in port to resupply and perform maintenance.
A = %availability, mostly governed by the time between overhauls/refurbishment, but will also be reduced by the likelihood of a required port being iced up.
Let the number crunching commence.
No, it is still wrong.
I should have typed ((P + E) / (E - 2 * T)) / A
Thats what I get for being in a hurry. :cry
The choice is between MANY smaller vessels (obviously with shorter endurance and range) versus FEWER larger vessels (with better endurance and longer range).
A compromise would be for more of the former and less of the latter - what would that percentage of each be? Other questions arise; how small is small? How large is large? Where to base the ships? Are the bases in the right places?
Does a country like Canada, with it's global-sized coastline need many (far more in comparison) smaller vessels (many in number albeit less range and endurance), or a few (fewer) large vessels (that have long range and excellent endurance)?