Author Topic: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)  (Read 213070 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #400 on: May 17, 2017, 14:59:03 »
A really good article, demonstrating, once again, that I am a dollar short and a day late.   [:D

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/a-ship-that-still-isnt-a-frigate/multilift/

Apparently the going rate for a similar ship is around 49 MUKP - or about 86 MCAD.  About the same price as the original NoCGV Svalbard.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 149
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #401 on: May 17, 2017, 20:26:30 »
Shame Harper didn't pull the trigger and buy the 2 Mistral's building in France for Russia, sold to Egypt for a bargain.

HMS Ocean is apparently on the sales list. 

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,984
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,366
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #402 on: May 17, 2017, 22:23:19 »
Shame Harper didn't pull the trigger and buy the 2 Mistral's building in France for Russia, sold to Egypt for a bargain.

HMS Ocean is apparently on the sales list.

Here is what I find funny, we were close to buying the Mistrals, very close from what I hear.  The French got a better deal from the Egyptians so they turned around and turfed us out.  Now they want us to go to Mali with them.... "Should have cut us a deal buds"

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,502
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,170
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #403 on: May 18, 2017, 06:51:49 »
The RN was getting rid of their Bay class Amphibs for a song too a few years back.  They would also have been a good choice.

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 360
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #404 on: May 18, 2017, 09:19:28 »
The RN was getting rid of their Bay class Amphibs for a song too a few years back.  They would also have been a good choice.

Only one of the four: RFA Largs Bay was sold to Australia to become HMAS Choules for A$100m.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay-class_landing_ship

Edited to add: My *opinion* is these wouldn't be the best ship's for us; they are meant to be part of a larger amphibious group that has dedicated aviation ships (ie Ocean, being supplanted by the QEII Class), and as such don't have a hangar.  Even though they are based on the Enforcer (like Rotterdam, Johann de Witt, Galicia, and Castillia), the British choose not to have the hangar unlike the other's; it seems to be a singular choice as it isn't common for modern amphibious forces.

Historically the US equivalents (Austin [now for all intents gone], Whidbey Island, Harpers Ferry) also did not have hangars, but the San Antonio's do; from what I understand to make them more flexible.  Notably the US removed the well deck from the Wasp design for America (LHA-6) and Tripoli (LHA-7), but are probably putting it back in for LHA-8.

In any case, Bay Class type ships wouldn't be a good fit for Canada; they are really for "kick in the door" type stuff with other aviation amphibs.  If we were to get something (which I highly doubt), a Mistral or Juan Carlos (Canberra, Anodula) (also Dokdu is similar) would be at the top end, but something smaller like an Absalon or the conversions discussed more manageable.  Something like an Enforcer with the hangar would also work (still probably too much), but I'd remove the well deck before I'd sacrifice aviation (like Ocean, Izuma and Hyuga [both have extra berthing], et al).

We've gone around this a lot and although it makes for great chit chat (I also wish we had got the Mistrals, put the AOR's RAS gear starboard side, and sailed them heavily as training ships for now), is any of it realistic?

« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 11:34:30 by Baz »

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,233
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #405 on: May 18, 2017, 12:02:37 »
The only way this is realistic is if the CAF L1's can put their petty differences on the back burner and fully support this capability. A unified front from them would go a long way to convince the government of the day to authorize a step in this direction.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 179,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,033
  • Freespeecher
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #406 on: June 02, 2017, 16:06:20 »
On a different thread we talked about a semi amphibious force which could operate in Canada's arctic/Hudson bay region, moving around on hovercraft, helicopters or various landing craft (depending on who was posting) and having ground mobility with various MTV's like the Bronco. Certainly a force like that would have the wherewithal to actually operate off ships and land on other shores besides the Arctic ocean.

WRT moving and supporting a force for amphibious operations, if we wanted to go the air/helicopter only route the Japanese Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer would be a good basis to start, having the ability to carry up to 18 UH-60 class helicopters and should have the ability to house troops and equipment below decks. If it was outfitted exclusively for this sort of duty, then realistically you should be able to put a small combined arms unit aboard, especially one configured for the light role. The larger Izumo class helicopter destroyers can hold, 400 troops and 50 3.5 ton trucks (or equivalent equipment). The flight deck has 5 helicopter landing spots that allow simultaneous landings or take-offs.

As always, this would involve a pretty heavy investment in manpower and equipment, but it's nice to know that with sufficient will, these things are indeed possible...
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 16:10:19 by Thucydides »
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 97,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,537
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #407 on: June 02, 2017, 17:07:36 »
WE could do it like the Aussies did, have the Mistrals or the Spanish Canberra version 3/4 done over there and then lifted to here with Davie finishing the vessels. Task Davie with getting us 2 ships (must be a design in use by our allies) in a fairly short timeframe, with a fixed cost and they will handle the bidding for which design and how much is done overseas and here.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 164,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,363
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #408 on: June 02, 2017, 17:19:14 »
On a different thread we talked about a semi amphibious force which could operate in Canada's arctic/Hudson bay region

Or we could invest in a more responsible, longer lasting and relevant option of upgrading our air and port infrastructure in the north to serve all Canadians, including military units/ships that might make use of them from time to time.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 728,432
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,426
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #409 on: June 02, 2017, 19:18:17 »
WE could do it like the Aussies did, have the Mistrals or the Spanish Canberra version 3/4 done over there and then lifted to here with Davie finishing the vessels. Task Davie with getting us 2 ships (must be a design in use by our allies) in a fairly short timeframe, with a fixed cost and they will handle the bidding for which design and how much is done overseas and here.


I hear the Russians are selling these cheap.....
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #410 on: June 02, 2017, 19:39:55 »
Or we could invest in a more responsible, longer lasting and relevant option of upgrading our air and port infrastructure in the north to serve all Canadians, including military units/ships that might make use of them from time to time.

I think it is a bit of some of this and some of that.  There are more landing places than communities in the north.  Heck there are more islands than people in the north.

While infrastructure needs to be upgraded the spaces between the colonies also needs to be managed.  Primarily with air transport, fixed and rotary, but marine transport fills a need as well.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Scuba_Dave

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 108
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #411 on: June 02, 2017, 20:13:38 »
As for ship design, I do not think it would take a large design overhaul. We do not have the vehicles or landing craft to employ a large amphibious force. However, the training AND the training areas are already in place to conduct amphibious assaults. A small slant bay kind of like the VDS well on ships such as the HMCS Algonquin, would be large enough to launch zodiacs aft. If planned properly I am sure you could even recover said zodiacs at a fairly quick rate. That being said. In order for this idea to be successful at all, those at the top need to start realizing that the Battalions should be moving their Recce Pl to the coasts. The infrastructure to house them are already in place, for example CFB Workpoint in Esquimalt...The old home of 3vp. We already have the training areas available at places such as CFB Rocky Point and CFB Albert Head on the West Coast. It truly would be a quick swap and the training value would be integral to having a true Amphibious capability. One of which I know has been of interest in Ottawa for quite some time. I think the only thing holding this idea back is 1. Money and 2. A solid plan to implement the capability.
Arise from the ashes.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 164,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,363
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #412 on: June 03, 2017, 00:33:54 »
As for ship design, I do not think it would take a large design overhaul. We do not have the vehicles or landing craft to employ a large amphibious force. However, the training AND the training areas are already in place to conduct amphibious assaults. A small slant bay kind of like the VDS well on ships such as the HMCS Algonquin, would be large enough to launch zodiacs aft. If planned properly I am sure you could even recover said zodiacs at a fairly quick rate. That being said. In order for this idea to be successful at all, those at the top need to start realizing that the Battalions should be moving their Recce Pl to the coasts. The infrastructure to house them are already in place, for example CFB Workpoint in Esquimalt...The old home of 3vp. We already have the training areas available at places such as CFB Rocky Point and CFB Albert Head on the West Coast. It truly would be a quick swap and the training value would be integral to having a true Amphibious capability. One of which I know has been of interest in Ottawa for quite some time. I think the only thing holding this idea back is 1. Money and 2. A solid plan to implement the capability.

Vancouver Island has a Navy Base, and Air Base, training areas with waterfront, infantry/ other army guys and gals etc etc.

I've been calling it 'Commando Island' for years but no one seems to be paying attention. Maybe it's because I wear a kilt and, to them, commando means something different :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 9,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,301
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #413 on: June 03, 2017, 09:24:55 »
Even if we started out with just a small LCAC's fleet per coast, that would certainly be a step in the right direction and could be framed under "emergency preparedness" dual-roling.   :salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 464,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,772
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #414 on: June 03, 2017, 09:53:17 »
I think the only thing holding this idea back is 1. Money and 2. A solid plan to implement the capability.
3.  A demonstrated need (more pressing than "wouldn't it be cool if...").
4.  Inter-service parochialism.
5.  Greater funding/PY priorities.
6.  Broken procurement system
7.  Government understanding that not all military investments are regional slush-funds.
I even read works I disagree with;  life outside  an ideological echo chamber.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #415 on: June 03, 2017, 10:45:03 »
3.  A demonstrated need (more pressing than "wouldn't it be cool if...").
4.  Inter-service parochialism.
5.  Greater funding/PY priorities.
6.  Broken procurement system
7.  Government understanding that not all military investments are regional slush-funds.

Not to worry, all will be revealed next week.....



+300
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 97,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,537
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #416 on: June 05, 2017, 11:54:36 »
Even if we started out with just a small LCAC's fleet per coast, that would certainly be a step in the right direction and could be framed under "emergency preparedness" dual-roling.   :salute:

Hovercraft are great machines but require a lot of maintenance to keep them going. I would stick to 2x Landing craft and perhaps 2xCB-90's. Eventually the RCN could buy a couple of AP1-88/400 (same as the CCG machines) and run them in the Arctic.


Offline Scuba_Dave

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 108
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #417 on: June 06, 2017, 23:19:47 »
3.  A demonstrated need (more pressing than "wouldn't it be cool if...").
4.  Inter-service parochialism.
5.  Greater funding/PY priorities.
6.  Broken procurement system
7.  Government understanding that not all military investments are regional slush-funds.

lol yes to all of those things less #3. 40% of the worlds population currently lives within 100km of a coastline. The very fact that 71 percent of this entire planet is water should show enough of a need to have an Amphibious capability lol
Arise from the ashes.

Offline Scuba_Dave

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 108
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #418 on: June 06, 2017, 23:25:31 »
Vancouver Island has a Navy Base, and Air Base, training areas with waterfront, infantry/ other army guys and gals etc etc.

I've been calling it 'Commando Island' for years but no one seems to be paying attention. Maybe it's because I wear a kilt and, to them, commando means something different :)

HA! It has never made any sense to me why part of the Battalion hasn't moved back to the coast. Prime training areas which are being under utilized. So much so that they are starting to turn land back over to the civilian sector. Royal Roads University up until a few months ago, was still on lease to the now civilian University. That parcel of land alone is worth its weight in gold for something like amphibious assault training. None of this has to be done on a large scale at this very moment. It would be nice if they came out and said "Hey why not do it" and moved 100 troops to the coast to stand it up and start ironing out the wrinkles. Small boats, small numbers, small growing pains.
Arise from the ashes.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 97,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,537
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)
« Reply #419 on: June 07, 2017, 11:36:22 »
They only see land as something to sell off to make money, "divesting" is still the theme of the day in government.