Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)

[TangoTwoBravo]

Will the proposed JSS have "berths" and facilities for embarked troops?  Vehicles and kit are bulky but I think that once you get them on board a ship and secure they cease being an issue.  Soldiers need messing, bunks, ablutions, facilities to maintain fighting efficiency, recreation areas, offices and planning areas.  I'd like our ship (not that I am issuing decrees here  ) to be able to house this large company group plus or battalion group minus for long periods of time.  I'm thinking of around 250 soldiers as the minimum not including the ship's company, air detachment and HSS (Health Support Services). 

If we had three then perhaps one could always be available (along with an associated rotating high-readiness Company Group) while retaining the ability to "surge".

I'm now swimming well outside my lane and I think that I see some dorsal fins circling,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1346
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1347

Here's the press releases from April of last year

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18459.0.html

And the thread on the JSS discussion from this board

My take on JSS is that the original design allows for your helos and vehicles and support as well as accomodation for a bunch of command and support passengers and a hospital.  The accomodation and use of landing craft still seem to be the subject of some debate.

Cheers.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Kirkhill,

I went through the press releases and some of the threads on this board but I have yet to see mention of having accomodations for the deployed "battlegroup."  There is mention of modular systems for refugees etc so perhaps a similar system could be designed for transporting troops.  I will leave the discussion of whether the JSS can be everything for everybody to the Navy thread.

I guess I'm merging two threads here.  I like to think in the realm of the possible, so if we're examining having a littoral capability we must devise one that is at least possible.  The JSS offers some relevent capabilities, and without the appropriate shipping there cannot be a marine capability. 

All,

Going back to the main thrust of the thread, should a dedicated marine or littoral capability be included in the CF?  I can certainly see the benefits, but if we stay in the same envelope what would we have to get rid of to make it happen?

Cheers,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

You're right in that there is no accomodation for a "battlegroup" (700-1200 souls) but there is accomodation for a Joint staff and hospital personnel as well as a significant air det. 

I am trying to find the reference but I think I saw some place that some of the planning had allowed for as much as a combat team of 250.  There is certainly more than enough vehicle space. 

The Kiwis are managing to fit a LAV combat team complete into an 8000 tonne hull.  The JSS is a 25,000 tonne unit.

As an ice-strengthed unit working in our own littoral, and under our own land based air cover, it would have been quite able to support a deployment like last summer's arctic adventure on its own.  Perhaps with an ice-breaker and an OPV or 2 like this one http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/vessels-navires/details_e.asp?id=K-3 the Leonard J. Cowley, in support.  With a decent engine capable of driving her through the water at 25 to 30 knots and a 25-40mm on deck the Cowley wouldn't make a bad model for an OPV.http://www.masamarine.com/ship_patrol.html.

But digressing again.

The JSS could conceivably be both an AOR an a platform to support operations in domestic littoral waters.  An extra unit would probably keep the Navy and the Army happy (4 instead of 3) - but the price has to come down - If the Gov't wants Davie to build the ships and give Davie capacity it can use after the ships are built, then spend Industry Development bucks on Davie to do that.  Don't roll that cost into the price of the ships and charge it to DND.  DND should pay an internationally cost competitive price for the capability.  And that isn't 700,000,000 CAD per.

If we want to transport vehicles overseas then we could buy the Enforcer class vessels kitted out as the Brits have them.  They even have accomodations for a few hundred troops temporarily. 
If we want them to live aboard them fit them out like the Dutch have.

Or alternately we can buy or lease  a San Antonio or two from our American brethren.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Last indication we had the battlegroup would be embarked on the JSS and be deployed from Point A to Point B, kind of a waste if you have to fly the troops in don't you think? Then again the military changes their mind more then Infanteer changes his underwear.

 

[Infanteer]

Last indication we had the battlegroup would be embarked on the JSS and be deployed from Point A to Point B, kind of a waste if you have to fly the troops in don't you think? Then again the military changes their mind more then Infanteer changes his underwear.

Actually, I could see the utility in this "Amphibious Base".

Watching the Senate Committee hearing on CPAC which replayed General MacKenzie's testimony.  When asked why we should develop littoral support like the JSS (although he didn't like the actual "catch-all" design), he responded that, as a soldier in the Arctic, he was taught never to leave his snowshoes and his Ruck.  Likewise, while on winter warfare, we learned that the tobaggon group was our lifeline.

I could see the same value of something like this, even for a Air deployed group.  The ship can act as a "Mother Ship" cruising the littoral while protected by appropriate surface, subsurface and aviation assets.  For the troops on the ground, they have a secure "rear area" in the ship where medevac, supplies, etc can be delivered to a force in a hostile environment - even if they deployed their some other way.  If the "shit hits the fan", the Ship should be able to offer us a way of extracting them if needs be without having to grovel to our Southern neighbours for help.  Now that's sovereignty.

If the idea was taken up a notch, as Kirkhill suggests, and a dedicated troop ship was obtained, this could help move us away from the "big base" mentality that the Army has that essentially shackles us to a limited AOR.  Like the Marine's in the early part of the Vietnam War, the troopship could act as the "Forward Operating Base", with troops deploying for a few weeks at a time on operations on the mainland when required.  The ship can offer a safe and secure "rear area" for troops to unwind - better then having your base camp mortared, rocketed, and attacked by suicide bombers - a highly stressful environment.

Just a few ideas that can highlight the utility of such a vessel - more options in the "tool belt" of capabilities.  Remember, Admiral Jackie Fisher said something like The Army is just another thing for the Navy to shoot out (or something to that effect) - working on this principle is a true joint task that we should be looking at.

 

[Zipper]

All this is fine and dandy, and sounds great. But with the way things are going we won't have any offensive capability, and thus the need for the above type operational capability will be moot. well just need it for humanitarian aid, transport of equipment to soft theatres, and as a Naval support ship.

Sigh.

 

[Infanteer]

All this is fine and dandy, and sounds great. But with the way things are going we won't have any offensive capability, and thus the need for the above type operational capability will be moot.

Why don't you back your pessimism up with evidence.

I'm sure the Taliban/Al Qaeda forces in Tora Bora or the Shah-e-Kot valley would disagree with your statement....

 

[Zipper]

Why don't you back your pessimism up with evidence.

I'm sure the Taliban/Al Qaeda forces in Tora Bora or the Shah-e-Kot valley would disagree with your statement....

What forces did we have there? Anything that would need the level of support that is refered to above? Anything that we may have in the near future? Or was both those cases small to indivdual units with ALOT of US backing? We're capable of some offensive ops. Snipers and small units, but do any of those require a full on support ship?

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Zipper i know you are going to say you are a realist and not a pesimist, but in this world you are either moving or dying.  Sure you are right, at this time the forces is in a state of decline, moral in some areas is bad and equipment is old and in desperate need of replacement. But Infanteer is more right then wrong if you get the shinny new toys the troops will come.  Everybody likes new stuff and in order to get the numbers up you need to demonstrate your willing to back them and equip them.  It will not be an offer night success but in the span of genreation vast changes could be made.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nicely said Wizard.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Why?
Because we dont have a Navy to Transport them!!!! :

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I am starting to sound like a broken record but I'd like to see something specific about berthing for the "battlegroup" included in the SOR/ list of capabilities.  My fear is that they are envisioning deployments along the lines of the last ten years (heck, even longer back) where the kit goes by ship and the troops go by air.  Fine if you are entering a mature theatre but not so good if you are trying to put troops into a place where you do not yet have a port and airfield.  If we are called upon to intervene/assist in an area lacking these things we may be a little embarassed if we've assumed away certain problems. 

I hope that the plan does not include the embarked troops bringing cots and IMPs and living in sea-containers.  To give a land analogy, I'd rather move troops long distance with a highway cruiser than a five ton stake truck (if I want them to arrive in any shape fit to fight).

Perhaps I am worrying over nothing!

Cheers,

2B

p.s. I'm an optimistic skeptic!  :blotto:

 

[Kirkhill]

Right about now 2Bravo, my interpretation of what little detail is in the public domain is that your stake truck analogy is  probably closer to the JSS concept than is the Highway Cruiser.

It will apparently take all three JSS units to shift the vehicles and kit of a battlegroup with some portion of the force embarked.  The rest of the force will go by air or other means.

At least that's the way that I understand it.

Yes, it would be nice to keep bodies and kit together.

 

[Zipper]

Zipper i know you are going to say you are a realist and not a pesimist, but in this world you are either moving or dying.   Sure you are right, at this time the forces is in a state of decline, moral in some areas is bad and equipment is old and in desperate need of replacement. But Infanteer is more right then wrong if you get the shinny new toys the troops will come.   Everybody likes new stuff and in order to get the numbers up you need to demonstrate your willing to back them and equip them.   It will not be an offer night success but in the span of genreation vast changes could be made.

Huh? Ok. Either I'm reading things wrong, or my messages are being read wrong, or both. I cannot agree with you more Wiz. Bring in the Toy's and more people will want to come and play. I just wish the toys were better thought out. But that is another thread.

I was making a comment on Infanteer's statement of using the ships as a "Mother ship". It sounds great. I would love for that to happen. But with the way our forces are being made into "support" only (as a BG), it makes it hard to see it as being able to be done.

Now if we were living in my perfect world (scary for some). These hopeful raises to the budget and new equipment would be the tip of the iceberg and we would be expanding back into a self sufficient force once again (with Tanks ;D).

Lets wait and see if the budget is more generous then has already been stated with the 5000 "extra" troops.

And I agree with you there 2Bravo. More info needs to come into the light on just what these new ships can do.

 

[Infanteer]

I was thinking along the lines of an Air Assault/Airborne entry into a hostile theater, creating a neccessary airhead/beachhead to allow the heavier gear to come up from the JSS ship.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Again I will say we (the Navy...you know the guys and gals that will be sailing and maintaining the JSS)are being told the troops will be embarked on the JSS so there will be no need for fly overs etc etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

Again I will say we (the Navy...you know the guys and gals that will be sailing and maintaining the JSS)are being told the troops will be embarked on the JSS so there will be no need for fly overs etc etc.

Any news, indications or otherwise, of how many bodies per hull you are talking about?  And are these disembarking types or are these Command and Support types that might stay aboard if the JSS stays in Theatre waters?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'll stop being a worry-wart and assume that I'll have a bunk.  As long as I have wardroom privledges I guess I don't care where they stick me (I am used to sleeping on a back deck). ;D

In an effort to refine this idea I've made the following assumptions:

  1.  The JSS will be able to move the large company group over long distances and deliver them fit to fight

  2.  It will have three to four "transport" versions of the NH-92 that can carry 22 people or at least a fully loaded 12 man infantry sect

  3.  It will be escorted by at least one 280 and several CPFs if it is going anywhere

With four helicopters it could deliver a platoon (3 x 12 man sect plus a HQ with wpns det of ALAWs, C-6 and CASW) in one "flight."  Depending on the distance to shore it could therefore deliver the company group within two to three hours (five to six "flights").  It would be nice to have a helo from one of the escorts available for the rescue of people if things go bad.  Airforce guys please feel free to sort me out here!

This force would be useful in an unopposed sovereignty op or in a low-risk situation.  Perhaps a small state where law has broken down and the threat is small gangs.  The big problem is the lack of air cover and dedicated fire support.  Lacking these this "Marine" force will have to pick its targets very carefully!

Cheers,

2B

 

[a_majoor]

I think 2Bravo has summed it up pretty effectively. Marines (unless they are considered to be strictly shipboard troops to repel boarders and suppress mutinies) need lots of clever ways to get ashore, and to be useful, must always be able to make opposed landings. Rowing ashore in the ship's longboats dosn't cut it.

The USMC has many ways of getting combat power ashore, from "Amtrack" amphibious vehicles, hovercraft to swoop in carrying everything from Tanks to 21/2 tons, armadas of helicopters to ferry troops and equipment, as well as another armada of aircraft and armed helicopters to support the force afloat and ashore. The former USSR formed "Naval Infanty" units, which relied more on special ships and carrying platforms (Hovercraft and landing ships) to bring standard issue BTR's and T-72s ashore, along with amphibious PT-76 recce tanks to swim in with the first wave.

Either way involves a lot more hardware than the government is willing to invest into the CF. At least wheeled LAVs won't need "tank transporters" for the long road move from the dock to the actual AOR.....