[Newsbot]

Title: Top general and defence bureaucrat were at odds over whether to buy French warships
Category: Military
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2016-02-09 08:17:03
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

$1:

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance encouraged the defence minister to purchase the Mistral-class ships from France.

An Army Officer procuring Naval Warships. What could possibly go wrong.

I don't want to say anything but. My guess is that he wanted those ships for their RO/RO and and helo carrying capabilities which would have given our Army the ability to extend their presence all over the world without having to rely on renting or hitching a ride from our allies.

The only bad part of that scenario is that the monies used to purchase those ships would have had to come out of the Naval Procurement budget meaning we'd be getting less new warships than we needed while still having an assault ship to protect.

[bootlegga]

As cool as those ships would have been, we do not have the sailors to man them, or more importantly, a real need for them.

Except for using them for humanitarian reasons (like after Katrina or the 2004 tsunami), we would not have used ships like these at anytime in the last 20 years.

Given our limited defence budget, it does not make sense to spend a couple billion dollars for these ships - we have far more pressing needs, such as new destroyers.

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

As cool as those ships would have been, we do not have the sailors to man them, or more importantly, a real need for them.

Since they have helo and hospital capabilities, couldn't they be refit to act as replacements for the resupply ships we don't have anymore?

Drop a crane and gantry on the decks, add a heavy lift . . . I'd think it's better than nothing. And the crews could wave to the Russians as they sailed past. . . .

[Canadian_Mind]

I'm glad we didn't buy them. See Boot's explanation.

[DrCaleb]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I'm glad we didn't buy them. See Boot's explanation.

Chad repelled a Libyan invasion attempt with a bunch og guys riding in the back of Toyota pickups. They destroyed a lot of Russian armour, while taking few casualties.

I'm just asking if they could have filled a need we have, with a little retooling - for less than we might end up paying for the same capabilities. I mean, they are trying to refit old container ships to become our resupply ships! In a few years, those will have to be replaced anyhow.

Wouldn't it be smarter and possibly cheaper to start with a warship and refit those?

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Given our limited defence budget, it does not make sense to spend a couple billion dollars for these ships - we have far more pressing needs, such as new destroyers.

Destroyers without air cover are merely floating targets. Besides, if you don't have any kind of amphibious ability then your destroyer naval squadron is, at best, only ever going to have an active role in escorting the US Navy as the US Navy conducts on-shore missions.

And I know I've been beating this drum for ten years now but I think you people are foolish if you're going to bet the security of Canada on the US will to protect Canada.

The current President should serve as proof of that statement.

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

As cool as those ships would have been, we do not have the sailors to man them, or more importantly, a real need for them.

Since they have helo and hospital capabilities, couldn't they be refit to act as replacements for the resupply ships we don't have anymore?

Drop a crane and gantry on the decks, add a heavy lift . . . I'd think it's better than nothing. And the crews could wave to the Russians as they sailed past. . . .

Sorry Doc but it's one fuck of alot harder to convert an assault ship to a supply ship than just adding a few cranes and having a helo lift capability.

First off we need multi support ships that include fuel supply capabilities which would mean converting large portions of the interior of the ship into fuel tanks then with all the piping to move it then, you have spaces to be converted to magazines and store rooms. Now onto the upper decks you need, goal posts, highline winches, in and outhaul winches, elevators and cages before you can even consider resupplying a warship with a NATO standard capability.

To be honest it'd be one hell of alot cheaper to build a new warship than to try and retrofit one of those helo carrying assault ships.

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention was that the deck height of those assault ships is far to high to enable them to fuel or supply a frigate or destroyer. The angle would make coming alongside and putting a highline(spanwire) across virtually impossible. The only way you could conduct a RAS would be if the receiving ship was so far away you'd have to send them fuel and supply's by carrier pigeon.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

To be honest it'd be one hell of alot cheaper to build a new warship than to try and retrofit one of those helo carrying assault ships.

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention was that the deck height of those assault ships is far to high to enable them to fuel or supply a frigate or destroyer. The angle would make comming alongside and putting a highline across virtually impossible.

Appreciated. That's all I was wondering. It just seemed absurd to me to retrofit an unarmored container ship into a resupply ship if an armoured warship is available cheaply. But giving the height and gas tank plumbing requirements, that makes sense.

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

To be honest it'd be one hell of alot cheaper to build a new warship than to try and retrofit one of those helo carrying assault ships.

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention was that the deck height of those assault ships is far to high to enable them to fuel or supply a frigate or destroyer. The angle would make comming alongside and putting a highline across virtually impossible.

Appreciated. That's all I was wondering. It just seemed absurd to me to retrofit an unarmored container ship into a resupply ship if an armoured warship is available cheaply. But giving the height and gas tank plumbing requirements, that makes sense.

No problem.

I guess despite the doubts my years of service on the Provider finally paid off.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I mean, they are trying to refit old container ships to become our resupply ships! In a few years, those will have to be replaced anyhow.

Wouldn't it be smarter and possibly cheaper to start with a warship and refit those?

The only reason they are refitting a container ship for that role is because our government dithered and sputtered on building new supply ship for the two decades.

The JSS design was proposed in the late 90s and the Liberals were supportive (supposedly), but they didn't fast track it, likely because they thought they had lots of time before the current ships were scheduled for decommissioning around 2012-2014.

The Conservatives made a bad situation worse by cancelling/postponing the program a couple times, then finally re-instating it with different requirements. They too didn't make it a priority until it was far too late.

As bad as refitting a container ship sounds, it's better than renting an AOR from Chile.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... adian-navy

That's an example of how bad this file has been bungled.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Given our limited defence budget, it does not make sense to spend a couple billion dollars for these ships - we have far more pressing needs, such as new destroyers.

Destroyers without air cover are merely floating targets.

The Mistrals are helicopter carriers and cannot provide any sort of meaningful air cover, especially given that the current government has promised NOT to buy the F-35 (the VSTOL version would be the only plane that could possibly fly off these ships).

Besides, our destroyers, much like the USN's Aegis ships, are specialized anti-air vessels, carrying Standard SM-2 SAMs, and I expect our new DDHs will have SM-3 SAMs.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Besides, if you don't have any kind of amphibious ability then your destroyer naval squadron is, at best, only ever going to have an active role in escorting the US Navy as the US Navy conducts on-shore missions.

We haven't had a role since World War 2 where we have needed this capability, so I'm fine with not wasting money on an amphibious capability. I'd far prefer to spend money on destroyers and frigates.

And given that RCN frigates have been practicing operating as part of USN battle groups for a long, long time now, (I saw HMCS Regina at Yokohama in 1999 when it was operating with the USS Kitty Hawk group on its way to the Gulf), I'm not too worried about it happening in times of conflict.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

And I know I've been beating this drum for ten years now but I think you people are foolish if you're going to bet the security of Canada on the US will to protect Canada.

The current President should serve as proof of that statement.

I don't trust any non-Canadian with the security of our nation, and while we may not be big defence spenders, we are patriotic and dedicated.

I truly believe that if someone backed Canada up against a wall, they'd get a far bigger fight than they expect.

[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I truly believe that if someone backed Canada up against a wall, they'd get a far bigger fight than they expect.

Two world wars last century proved that. We don't need a standing military. History tells us we can whip one up pretty quickly if we need it.

[Canadian_Mind]

Lemmy Lemmy:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I truly believe that if someone backed Canada up against a wall, they'd get a far bigger fight than they expect.

Two world wars last century proved that. We don't need a standing military. History tells us we can whip one up pretty quickly if we need it.

We might not need a standing military to fight wars on foreign soil. But we'dbe hooped if the country was invaded. As big as Canada is, you can't whip up a significant fighting force in the amount of time it'd take a Russian, Chinese, or American Mechanised corp to roll from one end of the country to the other.

[Lemmy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

We might not need a standing military to fight wars on foreign soil. But we'dbe hooped if the country was invaded. As big as Canada is, you can't whip up a significant fighting force in the amount of time it'd take a Russian, Chinese, or American Mechanised corp to roll from one end of the country to the other.

That's all true. But we could go broke preparing for the all sorts of potential catastrophes that will likely never materialize. On the list of things I'm worried about, being invaded is way, way, way down the list. And again, look to history: ask the Nazis how easy it was to occupy a large country, no matter how fast they swept across it initially.