Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

[Cloud Cover]

Let me start by saying I'd love to see Canada with a couple of aircraft carriers. Something like the Cavour would provide a great deal of flexibility for the CAF...a mobile airfield for F-35's, with Cyclones it could be flagship for an ASW task force, it could be used to launch amphibious or air mobile operations, be a platfom to support HADR operations, etc.

That being said, I'm not 100% convinced they would provide better "bang for the buck" over other options.

Agree in general that naval and air assets are better suited than land forces for our own national and continental defence. Also agree that unlike WWII (where most European nations were either occupied or enemies) basically ALL of Europe is on our side and our military contribution on the ground is not as militarily vital as it was then. However, our political contribution (in the form of ground forces fighting alongside our allies) is just as vital for both deterrence of Russia and unity of the NATO alliance if deterrence fails.

I think the likelihood of any Russian or Chinese surface fleet approaching either our Atlantic or Pacific coasts is exceedingly small. I doubt the Russian Navy maintains a blue water offensive capability and would much more likely be used close to home to defend their SSBN's rather than trying to break out into the Atlantic where they lose any land-based AD or fighter cover.

Similarly, the PLA(N), while large and developing blue water capabilities is highly unlikely to risk exposing itself to US Carrier Groups by pushing beyond the cover of their land-based fires.

As for the Arctic, moving a carrier into the Bering Sea/Straight, Beaufort Sea, Arctic Ocean or Barents Sea areas would put it in range of Russian land-based aircraft making it a pretty juicy target. For the cost of the carrier and 16 x F-35B's how many additional F-35A's could you get and disperse them across various Arctic airfields where they could deter as easily as carrier-based fighters but be much safer than grouped together on a single, floating platform?

I see Australia's Assault Landing Ships as being used to move troops to support/reinforce allied nations rather than conducting assault landings on enemy-held territory. If the destination nations are friendly then you could simply deploy aircraft there directly rather than deploying them on a carrier.

In my opinion the greatest maritime threat to Canada and our Allies is submarines. No enemy surface fleet is likely to risk approaching anywhere near our shores (and as I mentioned above I highly doubt the willingness/capability of the Chinese or Russians to deploy their surface fleets beyond the range of their land-based assets). However, I'm almost certain (just like WWI and WWII) that our enemies will deploy their submarines in an attempt to disrupt the flow of American troops and materiel to a conflict in Europe/South Asia. They will also very likely try to use their submarines to take out American aircraft carriers due to their massive ability to project power.

I think the most welcome course of action that Canada could take would be to seriously increase our ASW capability. The CSC's, P-8's and promised submarines are a good start. ASW capable replacements for the Kingston-Class would be a major help as would a large network of uncrewed sensor systems.

Two carriers gobble up a significant portion of our remaining surface fleet to support and protect them which means less ASW assets to protect our maritime domain and to protect our allies. Better to spend that money on more ASW assets that can be more widely deployed and provide greater overall defence in my opinion.

China has 3 carriers at sea and 2 in the slips. I think only 1 is a super carrier at this point. (Edit- but they are all strike carriers. They also have LPD and LPH with reinforced flight decks but to my knowledge do not have an F35B type of aircraft (yet))

In the event of China vs US/Western war I think it’s fair to expect that both sides will clobber the crap out of each others carriers in the SCS region as fast as possible, certainly they’ll try to take out Japan’s 2 (+2) carriers, whatever Korea, Australia have + whatever the US has in theatre. The PLAN will, of course, lose all of theirs but the world will still be short of carriers.
It could be a carrier- while not a strike carrier- could be a worthy strategic asset in reserve or just holding the line while the USN re-constitutes.
I remember reading a while back that China has the capability to let loose more than 4000 anti ship cruise missiles in the first few days of a conflict by sea, submarine, air and land.

The JMSDF Izumo Class F35B conversion is notable in design because it’s a carrier but not a strike carrier like Cavour, the QE class, and every US carrier and also not an assault ship like the Canberra. The concept of operations is apparently sea lines of control.

Mind you, Japan already has a very powerful navy anyway.

 

[GR66]

China has 3 carriers at sea and 2 in the slips. I think only 1 is a super carrier at this point. (Edit- but they are all strike carriers. They also have LPD and LPH with reinforced flight decks but to my knowledge do not have an F35B type of aircraft (yet))

In the event of China vs US/Western war I think it’s fair to expect that both sides will clobber the crap out of each others carriers in the SCS region as fast as possible, certainly they’ll try to take out Japan’s 2 (+2) carriers, whatever Korea, Australia have + whatever the US has in theatre. The PLAN will, of course, lose all of theirs but the world will still be short of carriers.
It could be a carrier- while not a strike carrier- could be a worthy strategic asset in reserve or just holding the line while the USN re-constitutes.
I remember reading a while back that China has the capability to let loose more than 4000 anti ship cruise missiles in the first few days of a conflict by sea, submarine, air and land.

The JMSDF Izumo Class F35B conversion is notable in design because it’s a carrier but not a strike carrier like Cavour, the QE class, and every US carrier and also not an assault ship like the Canberra. The concept of operations is apparently sea lines of control.

Mind you, Japan already has a very powerful navy anyway.

To my mind it would be very silly of the Americans to bring their carriers into range of Chinese land-based AS weapons and just as silly for China to push their carriers beyond them...and I doubt either of them are very silly.

In my opinion the best option for the US in a war with China would be to establish a far naval blockade of China and choke them of the vital resources they need. China is a net importer of almost every key resource (including food and energy). Subs and long range fires would work to keep the Chinese surface fleet close to shore, while allied ASW assets would hunt Chinese subs trying to break the blockade. US carriers would provide cover for the ASW screen against attacks by long range missiles and aircraft.

That's what I would do anyway.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Pretty sure the USN actually has carriers based in Japan, and likely one or two on station in theatre in or near the SCS.

A Chinese CV in wartime should not make it out of the SCS region.

I’ll also note the USAF is now rapidly renovating Tinian … it’s like everybody has now accepted things are going to break open sooner rather than later.

 

[GR66]

GR66, While I generally agree with most what you say, I disagree that the greatest maritime threat is submarines. There is a significant air threat also. Russia still retains important long range strategic aircrafts specifically designed to attack convoys and major surface unit in the mid-Atlantic. I believe that China has some such capability also. Moreover, today's submarine threat is not unidimensional anymore as they carry an important missile load that constitutes an air threat.

Russian maritime strike aircraft will have to cross through the GIUK Gap in order to reach the mid Atlantic and there are lots of places that land-based aircraft can be stationed to intercept them before they get anywhere near the convoy route. Similarly, Chinese aircraft would have to pass the 1st Island Chain where again they could be detected/intercepted by land-based aircraft.

Also, escort ships (like the River-Class) have significant AD capabilities whether the incoming missiles are fired from aircraft, surface ships or submarines. F-35's can definitely shoot down missiles too, but with the Russian Kh-55 missile carried by Russian Bear bombers having a range up to 2,500km I think it's unlikely that they will get close enough to the carrier to be engaged by its F-35s.

A carrier in the Cavour range of size and style could be a major ASW asset that also provide air cover over an ASW force.

Agreed, and I acknowledged as much in my post. Definitely useful for protecting a specific target like a carrier strike group or a convoy (will US fast transports even convoy in wartime, or will they disperse to provide less targets?). But it means that you are concentrating a lot of your ASW assets (the carrier and its escorting ships) in one spot rather than dispersing them to create a detection net.

Just a stupid question here for our Air Force brethren: How hard would it be to turn V-22 Ospreys into long range ASW "helicopter"? Run like a plane from place to place, hover like a chopper to lower transducer? Just a weird idea of mine - don't feel like you must answer.

Again, I really don't want to come across as "carrier bad" in my statements. As I originally said in an ideal world I'd love to see Canada with a couple of carriers. It's just that realistically we can't/won't get both carriers and the quantity of ASW platforms that a country with the size of our maritime domain really needs. If that's the case then I think that the opportunity cost of getting carriers (in terms of other, cheaper ASW platforms we could get instead) makes them not worth the expense.

 

[dimsum]

I love it and all the add on hulls that come with it.

My one point is I think we need to un-fubar the Naval Aviation house first and give it back to the RCN proper. I see this idea being gong show of competing commands and little empires otherwise.

The problem is that it eventually becomes “money for ships or money for helicopters”. I think I know where the RCN would put its money first.

MH, and TAC Hel, will be the red headed stepchildren of other services, vice the RCAF

 

[Underway]

The problem is that it eventually becomes “money for ships or money for helicopters”. I think I know where the RCN would put its money first.

MH, and TAC Hel, will be the red headed stepchildren of other services, vice the RCAF

If the helicopters were owned by the navy instead of the airforce you might be surprised by the decision.

 

[dimsum]

If the helicopters were owned by the navy instead of the airforce you might be surprised by the decision.

I really hope so, but cynical me just thinks that if budgets start crunching, the RCN will default to “ships first”.

 

[Maxman1]

Let me start by saying I'd love to see Canada with a couple of aircraft carriers. Something like the Cavour would provide a great deal of flexibility for the CAF...a mobile airfield for F-35's, with Cyclones it could be flagship for an ASW task force, it could be used to launch amphibious or air mobile operations, be a platfom to support HADR operations, etc.

That being said, I'm not 100% convinced they would provide better "bang for the buck" over other options.

For amphibious and possibly even ASW, the Mistral class is best bang for our buck. In terms of aviation capability, the Wasp or America class LPD are probably better for amphib and ASW.

 

[suffolkowner]

14 B21's with the range and loadout that avoids the need for an aircraft carrier

 

[GK .Dundas]

I keep forgetting that Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce won WW II single handed.

 

[FSTO]

I keep forgetting that Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce won WW II single handed.

The USAAF/USAF tried to use that myth to sink the USN carrier fleet.
They failed.

The Revolt of the Admirals and Today’s Battle Over the Defense Budget

An interview with Naval War College Associate Professor Anand Toprani on the 1949 revolt and why the causes may still be around today.

www.usni.org

The “revolt” was an effort by Navy officers—not just admirals, either, as then–Captain Arleigh Burke was deeply implicated—in 1949 to oust Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson, whom they viewed as hostile to the Navy, particularly its carrier aviation capability. There were two stages to the revolt. In the first, a civilian employee of the Navy (and a naval reservist) fabricated and then leaked to a sympathetic congressman (a retired reservist) an “Anonymous Document” accusing Johnson and Air Force Secretary Stuart Symington of corruption for favoring the procurement of the B-36 heavy bomber. Navy officers were opposed to the Air Force and Army’s preferred wartime strategy of relying on strategic bombing to deter or halt a Soviet invasion of Western Europe and feared that resources for a strategic-bombing force would come at the expense of the Navy—specifically its carriers. The publication of the “Anonymous Document” inspired congressional hearings in August that vindicated Johnson and Symington, as well as embarrassed the Navy.

In the second stage, a Navy officer attached to the Joint Staff upped the ante by releasing internal Navy correspondence alleging that Johnson’s policies—including the cancellation of the first “supercarrier” [USS United States (CVA-58)] back in April—were harmful to the Navy’s morale and detrimental to national security. This exposé led to another round of hearings in October, in which senior Navy officers publicly broke with Secretary Johnson and Navy Secretary Francis Matthews and criticized the current fetish for strategic bombing as immoral and ineffective.

 

[dimsum]

I love it and all the add on hulls that come with it.

My one point is I think we need to un-fubar the Naval Aviation house first and give it back to the RCN proper. I see this idea being gong show of competing commands and little empires otherwise.

To pull more on the RCN Naval Aviation thread, this effectively adds empires to the RCN by adding trades.

Say this happens and the RCN (including aviation) starts looking at career management, are there going to be senior officers earmarked from the NWO vs Pilot, ACSO, etc community? Will the RCN prioritize one community over another for leadership?

I personally like the idea of the RCN and CA getting their assets back because it makes C2 more straightforward, but history shows that they got punted to the side when “big Navy” or “big Army” politics get involved.

 

[dapaterson]

I want a Sea King or Aurora pilot as CRCN.

 

[Underway]

To pull more on the RCN Naval Aviation thread, this effectively adds empires to the RCN by adding trades.

Say this happens and the RCN (including aviation) starts looking at career management, are there going to be senior officers earmarked from the NWO vs Pilot, ACSO, etc community? Will the RCN prioritize one community over another for leadership?

I personally like the idea of the RCN and CA getting their assets back because it makes C2 more straightforward, but history shows that they got punted to the side when “big Navy” or “big Army” politics get involved.

How does it work in other navies? RAN, RNZN, RN, USN, and NATO navies. They all have rotary air in their perview and in many cases all Maritime Patrol Aircraft as well.

There are positions that are equivalent in the ladder that are identified which any stripe of naval officer can move through. In the US their equivalent of Combat Systems Engineers can become CO's as well as pilots. If you pass your command exams and do the command course does it matter? Its just that command exams and command course isn't offered to Engineers or Pilots right now, you could easily offer it to them. Would they have a hard time passing? Hell yah, there is a lot of navigation involved.

Perhaps only certain ships can have pilots as CO's, ones where air operations are more important and control of navigation responsibilities are delegated to a wet officer on a more permanent basis instead of an adhoc one like with current RCN ships.

 

[KevinB]

I wish for that, but I suspect the belt will be tightened once a new government gets in and DND is a easy target.

The belt for DND will not get tighter, simply because external forces (US) will not accept it.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I always want to take care when responding to you.

I don't think we will ever see the international situation, or for that matter the national defence situation, in the same terms.

I am strongly convinced that a primary reason for the lack of support for national defence in Canada is the ongoing tendency to argue that Canada lives in a fireproof house and has no need to be concerned.

At the same time Canadians get the message that we need to go looking for wars overseas. While it may be the right thing to do, it does tend to put our fireproof house at risk.

....

D-Day on the St-Lawrence, or even Resolute, has never been a possibility. Conventional warfighting is not a major likelihood in Canada.

Having said that nobody has declared war in any country in a very long time. Wars mix the state military with private industry, politics and criminals. Anybody can buy their way into a remote site in Canada and then start flying in security teams and assets. Add some disgruntled natives and a few bikers and pretty soon, IMO, the RCMP would be presented with a tactical problem outside of their skills and scope.

....

I think that we have a perfectly adequate base from which to build an appropriate Army Response Force. The Brigade.

Following on from 11th Abn and some of the US light brigades and divisions, and based on our recent Cold War history I propose 3 Infantry Brigades, 1 Armoured Brigade and 1 Combat Support Brigade.

The Infantry Brigades would be based on the three infantry regiments with 2 Rifle Battalions and 1 New Model Battalion (ISR/EW/UAS/CUAS/Cyber...) They would follow the basic design construct of the old Special Service Force.

The Cavalry Brigade would be based on the RCD, the LdSH and 12 RBC and Armoured Engineers- using the Swedish Pansar Combined Arms model.

The Combat Support Brigade based on 1 and 2 RCHA, 5 RALC and 4 GS Regiment.

.....

I would propose two active Div HQs, The distribution of Brigades within the Divs is not important. What is important is that each Division HQ is switched on an deployable and can absorb additional elements from Canadian and Allied forces. Adhocery as the rule.

Likewise for the Brigades - cross attachments to other Brigade HQs as the norm, and regular training with different modes of transport.

...

Why 2 divisions? Personal preference, a sense that the rest of the world organizes along divisional lines and a notion that Canada should be able to manage at least that level of commitment to sustain any degree of self-worth.

If your reason for having two Divisions is to have the capability to deal with foreign PMCs, bikers and our indigenous population in Canada then I don't think we'll ever align our views.

The Canadian Armed Forces do not "go looking for wars overseas." The employment of Canadian military force is a Canadian governmental policy decision. The Chief of Defence Staff is the Prime Minister's principal advisor on the employment of military force, but that is about the "how" of capabilities and presenting options. The eFP was a governmental decision taken collectively with the other members of NATO.

The arctic is seen as a contested area, more so than fifteen years ago. At the end of the day, though, credible threat is what drives policy responses. The CAF is absolutely active in the arctic, and improvements in some capabilities are certainly being sought.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The belt for DND will not get tighter, simply because external forces (US) will not accept it.

Promises will be made, big ticket items like CSC, F35 and likley the subs will continue, the other stuff will fall to the wayside I suspect. I certainly hope I am wrong. But do not underestimate the ability of a Canadian government to cut itself off at the knees.

 

[dapaterson]

Submarines are vulnerable since the acquisition would be from a non Canadian supplier, meaning greater difficulty in sustaining popular support.

Build them in Wadena and they'd be safe (if landlocked).

 

[FJAG]

Submarines are vulnerable since the acquisition would be from a non Canadian supplier, meaning greater difficulty in sustaining popular support.

Build them in Wadena and they'd be safe (if landlocked).

How about Ontario Shipyards in Hamilton?

One partners with a known product so that design work is limited and then, in partnership, develops the skills and technology here to produce a steady stream of vessels for the next 15 years or so and then maintains, upgrades and replaces worn out ones.

They'll easily fit through the Seaway and you just need to learn to plan around the winter Seaway closures.

 

[OldSolduer]

Submarines are vulnerable since the acquisition would be from a non Canadian supplier, meaning greater difficulty in sustaining popular support.

Build them in Wadena and they'd be safe (if landlocked).

Subcontract the periscopes to Prince Albert......that should recruit a lot of first class scientests,