My ideal navy (aka not holding my breath aka not in my wildest dreams)

[NavyShooter]

Hey Ex,

I think losing the MCM capability to gain a better Littoral capability would be a worthwhile trade-off. 

The lessons learned in design and use of the MCDV's could be put to use in building an improved one, with a bit more capability than those we have now.  (And selling these ones off to another nation to help fund some better patrol craft would be a good idea!)

In truth, I think that dreaming for anything beyond the AOR's on the horizon is a bit much for our Navy.  What we have is what we've got, and the addition of major vessels hasn't even begun yet.  Getting some good quality patrol vessels will add significantly to our capabilities, and are within the grasp of the budget constraints we have.

NS

 

[Cloud Cover]

What about an airborne towed suite like the USN installed on a few of their Sea Dragons. If an easily installable plug and play system could be found, that may be a partial solution.* If we had a half dozen kits, plus a half dozen properly constructed and kitted minesweepers, we would have a very flexible and deployable capability.

While we often talk about minesweeping, what about mine laying? I couldn't think of a better way to deny our arctic regions than the threat of a capability to rapidly sow a mine field in the near arctic approaches.

Cheers.

edit: what I mean to say here, is can a few [6] of the Cyclones be rigged to tow the Mk 105 minesweeping sled, the Mk 103 Mech Minesweeping system and the interface the ASQ-14 side scan sonar. All of this kit is fitted to the MH-53E Sea Dragon. If this equipment can fitted on an as required basis, and a certain number of crews trained and kept proficient, we would gain a valuable, deployable capability that suits both the defence of Canada and can be used on other more global operations. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

What about an airborne towed suite like the USN installed on a few of their Sea Dragons. If an easily installable plug and play system could be found, that may be a partial solution.* If we had a half dozen kits, plus a half dozen properly constructed and kitted minesweepers, we would have a very flexible and deployable capability.

While we often talk about minesweeping, what about mine laying? I couldn't think of a better way to deny our arctic regions than the threat of a capability to rapidly sow a mine field in the near arctic approaches.

Cheers.

edit: what I mean to say here, is can a few [6] of the Cyclones be rigged to tow the Mk 105 minesweeping sled, the Mk 103 Mech Minesweeping system and the interface the ASQ-14 side scan sonar. All of this kit is fitted to the MH-53E Sea Dragon. If this equipment can fitted on an as required basis, and a certain number of crews trained and kept proficient, we would gain a valuable, deployable capability that suits both the defence of Canada and can be used on other more global operations.  

If we were going to take 6 out of the pool so to speak that would be a big rreductionin fleet assets. Ships are going to sea now without an air det.   Not too mention what kind of stresses the Mk 105/Mk 103 would have on the Cyclone itself. The problem I see with using helos as a minesweeping platform is their on station time. A minesweeper can stay on station for days if not longer and at slower speeds I believe would be more thorough then an aerial unit. Thats not to say we should not get a variant of theCyclone that can do the job, just have a seseparaterder from the current or have a follow on order.

 

[Cloud Cover]

SAM 69 makes the point in the Air Force thread that the 48 or 49 are possible [likely?] contenders for the army medium lift helicopter. I gather from the FAS website that the mine detection equipment is snap in and snap out, since the Sea Dragon has other missions assigned to it as well:  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/h-53.htm - [how about that 55 troop capacity ].

I have no idea what kind of stress the sled would put on the Cyclone, I guess it would depend on a whole lot of variables.

So, I would think that if an extra 6 airframes are picked up as part of the medium/heavy lift package then some airframes would be available, not only for mine hunting, but for other missions as well. It would appear that a rear ramp is essential for the mine hunting role and I would imagine the troop carrier would be a rear ramp model as well.

Time on station: can't argue with that other than to add that a contribution in and of itself in the form of a JSS with at least 4 helo's, 2 of which might be at least initially dedicated in an operation to sweeping for mines be feasible.  Still, I recognize it would strain the aircrews to double task them. I would imagine this sort of task would burn up a significant amount of aviation fuel, not to mention the rather hazzardous practice of using a floating gas station as a platform from which to conduct aerial mine hunting operations.

Was it the Iwo Jima that was eventually tasked with mine hunting before lay up?

 

[DJL]

More importantly, will there be room for enough beer to keep 3000 Canucks happy for a 6 or 8 month deployment?

That point in non-negotiable 

This is a ship with a crew of ~1100, plus a combined army/af contingent of aroun 1800~ for a total approx. 2900 souls all told. Where do all these people come from, because I have a hard time believing there are that many willing participants in the army/af who would be willing to go to sea for the duration that these types of ships routinely perform.

First off, I understand the sheer numbers in personal needed to make my above "Ideal Navy" work are quite staggering and in the context of the CF unrealistic. With that said, if the CDS aimed high and told the government this is whats needed to carry out your demands of the military ,with something akin to my above proposal and was then bargained down by the government to a couple of small LHD/LPDs, 3-4 replacement AORs, 15-16 future surface combatants, some subs and perhaps some OPV/cutters, would you consider the navy losers?

As for your second point, you raise a good question. If the navy were to acquire a couple of phibs....how would we use them? Extended floats like the United States and to a lesser extent the British? Or would we use the phibs as transports that have the ability to land their cargo on a beach?

Now if we went with the USMC style of deployment of "X" number of months at sea, I don't forsee having problems with finding "willing participants in the army/af", as long as these deployments figured into these two services regular overseas deployments/rotations. For the airforce, I'd see this as an air detachment of a larger magnitude and for the army as a roto that included stops in more desirable places (ie. Hawaii) then what the poor buggers are accustomed to these days.

Having a ship like this sitting around in the dockyard so the crews can balance work/life is not an option, because this is a ship that must be routinely at sea in order to maintain skill sets, especially in a small military establishment like ours. 

I see what you're saying, and yes, keeping the ships at sea is the most ideal way to maintain certain skill sets, but is not the only way. For example, back when we had Maggie, then Bonnie, we cross-decked and had exchange programs for our flight crews with the USN and FAA, so I don't see why this couldn't be reborn in some fashion today(if the need was there).