Treasury Bd to Consider CF Amphib Ship Buy

[Jungle]

Last I heard - 11 to 13 years from planning to delivery.....

I believe they plan for the JSS to be operational in 2010. And according to the info I have, they want the Big Honking Ship to be sailing in 5 years...
Daniel H, about projecting power: what better way to project power then send a Naval task group consisting of an amphibious assault ship, escorting destroyer and/or frigate(s) and a submarine, carrying a Battalion-Group and attack and transport helicopters. This is what we are considering for the next few years.
Kirkhill, I'm glad they are talking about an amphibious assault ship. The tone is slowly changing: they used to talk about landing on secure beaches only, now they talk about unoccupied or lightly defended beaches. Big difference, and I believe we need to be able to carry out these tasks on our own.

 

[bravo2]

I wonder what would be more beneficial for our army an LPD our an LHD there is a big difference in size and capacity?

 

[Monsoon]

I wonder what would be more beneficial for our army an LPD our an LHD there is a big difference in size and capacity?

In terms of capacity, no. These days, all the acronyms (LPD, LPH, LST) are all pretty much made up to refer to specific projects, so they can't be compared by any measurable metrics the way Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers can. Typically, an "L" with an "H" does its landing by helicopter, and an "L" with a "D" offloads supplies or troops onto small boats for landing.  But they'll probably both have some amount of each capability.

 

[Kirkhill]

Jungle:  I would love to be wrong on this one.

How are the Naval types planning on adapting their task force to the role?

 

[Monsoon]

How are the Naval types planning on adapting their task force to the role?

The Naval Task Group is a flexible enough concept that adding an amphibious landing ship to the mix shouldn't pose any problems.  If you can defend an AOR or an aircraft carrier, then a landing ship just becomes another High-Value Asset to protect.  Since the landing zones will be "lightly-defended" only, it doesn't sound like they want to get into shore bombardment capability beyond what the ships' deck guns currently provide (that is, very little).

Similarly, I don't think the Brigade Groups will have to change much either - am I wrong about this?

 

[mover1]

Wow what a lot of speculation coming from a very poorly written article from an insignificant newspaper.
Remember Journalists call M113's tanks, and at the end of the article it states that the Navy hasn't decided what they are going to buy yet.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair comment hamiltongs.

Better comment mover1.

 

[shanks]

drop the 'assault', what we are in need of is stratigic lift capability. Whether that be by means of a 'Big Honkin' Ship' or by air (e.g. globemaster)
we are in need of the capability to move larger numbers of troops and equipment.

Forget the tanks, but we still have LAVs, the LAV 3 Coyote and the LAV MGS (mobile gun system) and we still need a way to move them.

The other point that has been raised is the emphasis on foriegn ops. What about home defense? If one looks our soveriegnty issues, we need more ships and aircraft to patrol our coastline. In order to be a soveriegn country you must have control of your air space and coastline. That is not the case in Canada.

My last point is lots of people say we need this and we need that and I am no exception to that. However, where is the money going to come from? cuts to health care? tax hikes?

 

[mover1]

It (the money) will come from wherever it needs to come from. Canada is wealthy and if we as a country cannot affort a couple of ships then we are in deep trouble.

 

[edadian]

Perhaps someone could correct me, but it seems we put global operations ahead of national defence. Amphibious ships and so forth are for foreign encounters.

It would be nice if they could fund replacements of the much more important destroyers, FELEX, and whatever else....nuclear subs would be nice some day. > They project force much better than anything we have correct? >

We would need amphibious ships to defend and retake our own Islands we do have a few thousand of them.

 

[Infanteer]

drop the 'assault', what we are in need of is stratigic lift capability. Whether that be by means of a 'Big Honkin' Ship' or by air (e.g. globemaster)
we are in need of the capability to move larger numbers of troops and equipment.

If you want "strategic lift" then you are going to have to look at a boat - inserting and sustaining a large number of troops via airplane (C-130, C-17) is beyond our capability (and stretching even the American's).

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually Jungle's comment got me rethinking my own earlier statement about secure landing sites.

We get to pick the time and condition of the insertions.  We may not be so lucky on the extractions.  Rugged ship with a well found defensive system doesn't sound such a bad idea.

Maybe if they had described it as a Combat Extraction Ship I would have got the message sooner ;D.

 

[Infanteer]

Actually Jungle's comment got me rethinking my own earlier statement about secure landing sites.

We get to pick the time and condition of the insertions.   We may not be so lucky on the extractions.

The Aussies call it "Maneuver Operations in a Littoral Environment" (MOLE):

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2004_W/AAJ_Winter_2004_AmphibWarfare.pdf

 

[Jungle]

Maybe if they had described it as a Combat Extraction Ship I would have got the message sooner ;D.

Correct... unlike Airborne ops, Amphibious ops can be carried out both ways !!!  :blotto:  ;D

 

[daniel h.]

I believe they plan for the JSS to be operational in 2010. And according to the info I have, they want the Big Honking Ship to be sailing in 5 years...
Daniel H, about projecting power: what better way to project power then send a Naval task group consisting of an amphibious assault ship, escorting destroyer and/or frigate(s) and a submarine, carrying a Battalion-Group and attack and transport helicopters. This is what we are considering for the next few years.
Kirkhill, I'm glad they are talking about an amphibious assault ship. The tone is slowly changing: they used to talk about landing on secure beaches only, now they talk about unoccupied or lightly defended beaches. Big difference, and I believe we need to be able to carry out these tasks on our own.

That's true....I hope it happens sooner than later.

 

[daniel h.]

drop the 'assault', what we are in need of is stratigic lift capability. Whether that be by means of a 'Big Honkin' Ship' or by air (e.g. globemaster)
we are in need of the capability to move larger numbers of troops and equipment.

Forget the tanks, but we still have LAVs, the LAV 3 Coyote and the LAV MGS (mobile gun system) and we still need a way to move them.

The other point that has been raised is the emphasis on foriegn ops. What about home defense? If one looks our soveriegnty issues, we need more ships and aircraft to patrol our coastline. In order to be a soveriegn country you must have control of your air space and coastline. That is not the case in Canada.

My last point is lots of people say we need this and we need that and I am no exception to that. However, where is the money going to come from? cuts to health care? tax hikes?

This is the thing, what about ships, even icebreakers, that can patrol the north?

 

[ghazise]

The proposed San Antonio Class does have effetively a RORO capabilities as with the other ships in the Gator Navy,   the stern gate when lowered can effectively acts as ramp to the pier, this is the preferred method of loading a ship and unloading an amphib,   Also without the purchase of additional equipment Hovercrafts, Expeditionary Fighting Vechicles or Landing crafts, this quasi RORO will be the only way to go ashore,  
Now in our wildest dreams if in addition to picking up two San Antonios, Canada picks up the Tarawa (it is scheduled to be retired), now you actual conduct helo-assaults.

 

[KevinB]

Now in our wildest dreams if in addition to picking up two San Antonios, Canada picks up the Tarawa (it is scheduled to be retired), now you actual conduct helo-assaults.

Sorry that would AND IF WE ALSO HAD HELICOPTERS... 

 

[bravo2]

Now in our wildest dreams if in addition to picking up two San Antonios, Canada picks up the Tarawa (it is scheduled to be retired), now you actual conduct helo-assaults.

Recent history dictate that we should stay away from used ships  !!!!!!

 

[Cloud Cover]

Recent history dictate that we should stay away from used ships   !!!!!!

I dunno. Tarawa is in service and operational. The subs were mothballed for quite a while.