Russia's Mistral class LHDs: updates

[dapaterson]

Who pays the bills for the CDFAI?  Lots of overlap with the CDA - who have vested interested in Defence spending money in Canada, regardless of the cost.  Buying two ships overseas would openly demonstrate the folly of the NSPS and the elevated costs Canada pays for domestic shipbuilding.

 

[Happy Guy]

Do you mean Canada should not have domestic warship building capability?

 

[YZT580]

The Russians have discovered the major disadvantage of buying off-shore.  The Israelis discovered this years ago when dealing with France.  They ended up stealing their own ships.  Having your own industry means no one can say you can't have it.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Do you mean Canada should not have domestic warship building capability?

Not if it is uncompetitive and grossly expensive.

 

[dapaterson]

Do you mean Canada should not have domestic warship building capability?

We don't build tanks.

We don't build fighter or transport aircraft.

We don't build submarines.

Why should we build surface warships?

 

[tabernac]

Do you mean Canada should not have domestic warship building capability?

The answer to this question hinges on the success, or failure of NSPS. And right now, things don't look too rosy - despite the rhetoric from FOs.

Not if it is uncompetitive and grossly expensive.

^This.

 

[Cloud Cover]

NSPS - No Steel Paper Ships. - this is nothing but a PMO that has as its chief product power point slides. Nothing will materialize and everybody knows that.   

 

[PuckChaser]

NSPS - No Steel Paper Ships. - this is nothing but a PMO that has as its chief product power point slides. Nothing will materialize and everybody knows that. 

As opposed to previous governments who ignored the fact that we should have started designing these ships 20 years ago?

 

[Cloud Cover]

the sort of gross incompetency, inertia and lack of urgency in Canadian ship building does not seem to be specific to any political party that happens to be in power. I was around when the Mulroney Cons added and deleted ship variants and classes at seemingly random whim (remember the AAW version of the CPF, the ASLV support ship, the Canadian Sovereignty Enforcement Vessel, how about those SSN's eh?) , with nary an intention of ever building any of them. That the CPF ever materialized was nothing short of a cock up of the highest order > somehow the ships were built in spite of the inept people supposedly managing and backing the project. I think the Chretien government was unaware the Kingston class was under construction until it was too late. The RCN has spent more money and decommissioned more naval ships under Harper than under Trudeau. Ironically, more ships and submarines (26) were commissioned under Chretien than any Prime Minister since perhaps Diefenbaker or more likely McKenzie King. And all of those were late Trudeau era projects that somehow made it through the grinder.           

 

[YZT580]

We don't build tanks.  Could if required. 

We don't build fighter or transport aircraft.  Could if we had to.  The infrastructure is there

We don't build submarines.  Perhaps we should have?

Why should we build surface warships?  Because if we do it right (big IF I know) we should end up with a decent industry infrastructure that will survive.  We spent billions on propping up GM and Oshawa is talking of closing.  Why not spend the same amount on establishing an industry that just may be able to stick around and supply the RCN for the next 50 years?  The inflated part of the cost of the ships is no greater than the money that went into GM in 2008 and those jobs lasted what 6 years.  At least we'll get 15 out of the shipyards.  Vancouver will start cutting steel next year.  They are ready to go so at least some of the promises will come to pass.  The procurement optics are terrible but consider the bright side.  We have 5 c17s and a whole fleet of hercs.  We have Ch47's.  None of these purchases were even thought of 10 years ago.  The army even got new tanks.  True the truck bit got screwed up.  Pardon the rant but I have spent 40 years paying taxes and seeing very little to show for it.  I have seen more new hardware enter service in the past 8 years than in any other identical time frame. 

 

[ringo]

IMHO the RCN would get a better bang for it's buck building hulls overseas with final fitting out and refits in Canadian yards, cost savings would be huge.

 

[Happy Guy]

This question is moot.  The government has already decided that it is politically more advantageous at this time to have a national ship building programme.  Of course despite rhetoric to the contrary if and when all the ships have been built, the government at that time will let the industry wither and die much like  what happen after the Halifax classes were built.

 

[ModlrMike]

This question is moot.  The government has already decided that it is politically more advantageous at this time to have a national ship building programme.  Of course despite rhetoric to the contrary if and when all the ships have been built, the government at that time will let the industry wither and die much like  what happen after the Halifax classes were built.

But then shouldn't the industry compete on the international stage for business? France can build ships for Russia; can't Canada build ships for someone else? Is it the responsibility of governments to prop up commercial interests (GM et al notwithstanding)?

 

[blacktriangle]

I don't think a military shipbuilding industry is something that the average Canadian supports or wants.

 

[McG]

We don't build fighter or transport aircraft.  Could if we had to.  The infrastructure is there

Avro Arrow 2? 

 

[GR66]

IF we could get a really sweet deal on a Mistral I think it would be an excellent purchase for Canada.

As far as the arguments in the article that we should do other things first THEN get a capability like a Mistral I'd say that it would be more expensive at that time (again...only buy it now if we can get a REALLY sweet deal on it).

I think the other arguments can be countered as well.  We don't need to permanently have Chinooks assigned to the ship. 

- When we need to deploy in a situation that requires Chinooks we embark the ones we have.
- You don't need a Marine Corps to deploy troops off the ship.  We have light troops that can already be deployed by helicopter or by landing craft (we're not envisioning opposed marine landings here)
- As they mentioned we rarely deploy without allies so we don't need to rely only on our own, domestic escorts for the ship.

This ship expands on what should be some of our core maritime capabilities.  It would be an excellent ASW command ship and submarines are really the major military threat to our coastline or Western forces in the case of a major conventional war.  It can be used for humanitarian-type missions which our governments love so much.  It would allow us to minimize our footprint in sensitive areas while maintaining the ability to project power.  It can be used to support allied troops (embarked troops or aircraft, hospital facilities, command facilities, etc). 

With this ship we wouldn't have as much requirement for a JSS-type vessel.  We could instead build simpler, cheaper AORs (even off the shelf) and get them into service faster.  Any new warships we get should have ASW helicopter capability so we can use the Mistral to host and train the crews required for those ships while we wait for their construction to be completed.

Overall AT THE RIGHT PRICE I think a Mistral would be an excellent choice for the RCN.

 

[Loachman]

Yes they can I've seen pictures of the CAF operating with the french do training and the chinooks were landing on a mistral.

To the best of my knowledge, none of our Chinooks have operated from any ship, yet. 430 Squadron did operate from Mistral for a few days earlier this year, though.

 

[McG]

How do Chinooks hold up against a corrosive maritime environment?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yes, 430 Squadron was embarked and carried out the support for a landing of forces from the R22R. They re-took the Gaspe airport from "terrorists" as part of Mistral Lion Ex.

See here in our own threads under Navy/ships:

Re: Little Honking Ships......

« Reply #182 on: June 24, 2014, 11:06:11 »

here is a little video of some of the possibilities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-byd6Fp5RW4

Article from here:
http://www.45enord.ca/2014/06/deux-cent-militaires-de-valcartier-debarquent-en-gaspesie-photosvideo/

This actually supports my position: the CF already has the assets it needs to usefully put on board Mistral type ships as required by whatever mission we want to carry out, the whole with little training required of the embarked force  - air or land - which is exactly what the French developed these ships for.  We are not and need not look at this as requiring that we transform into a US style specialized Marines force to carry out forcible entry against large opposition force and with the capability of invading (small) countries by ourselves.

And if they require an escort (doubtful in 99% of scenarios) we have frigates that are quite capable, except may be for long range AAW, but those are the first type of CSC's that will be built anyway.

Meanwhile, can any one tell me that these would not have been useful for the ops in East Timor? For the evacuation of Canadian residents from Lebanon? For support in the Hurricane Katrina ops or in the Haiti Earthquake op? Or that they would not be useful as mobile support base for those larger scale joint ex we are now carrying out in the Arctic from time to time?  None of these would require "escort".
     
MCG: I don't know what the resistance to corrosion is on Chinooks, but the US Marines have some of them embarked all the time. And the elevator for the airplanes are at the stern of the Mistral's, so folding rotors and letting the Chinook's tail hang over the side, they would fit on the elevator. Moreover, the "Russianized" Mistrals have a higher height in the hangar in order to accommodate the taller Russian helicopters.

 

[George Wallace]

How do Chinooks hold up against a corrosive maritime environment?

The US has used them in maritime environments for some time.

Not being a sailor, nor maritime aviator, but from what little I know, it will boil down to the "wash down" procedures done as a preventative measure on all aluminium aircraft used at sea.