[bootlegga]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Ok. Here are the pieces I've come up with. You guys tell me the mix that would work best. Remember, we have to keep cost affordable.

• rebuild the Canadian Forces Station at Resolute, capable of hosting a full wing of CF-18s (or their replacement) for a few months if necessary, any time of year
• nuclear powered full carrier, dual acting hull able to traverse deep ocean in heavy seas and a heavy icebreaker itself. 40% size of a Nimitz class supercarrier but with 2 hanger decks, as many aircraft as Nimitz, but all Hornets and no SuperHornet. Support for carrying some SuperHornets on the deck. Air wing: 48 Hornets, 8 Viking, 2 Dash-8 cargo planes with folding wings and hardened for carrier landings, 4 MQ-9 Mariner UAVs with the same radar as an E-2D Hawkeye, 4 jet UAVs with the same jamming ability as an EA-6B Prowler (but no missiles), 6 CH-148 Cyclone Helicopters, 1 CH-118 Iroquois helicopter (small).
• buy the INS Vikrant from India (same age and class as the HMCS Bonaventure) and convert to a helicopter carrier. Not ice hardened, but capable. Flexible configuration could carry F-35B (jump jet version), Harrier 2, AH-1W SuperCobra, CH-148 Cyclone helicopters, Desault Rafale M, MQ-9 Mariner UAVs.
• nuclear powered AOR, dual acting hull again (sharp bow for heavy seas, heavy icebreaker bow in the stern, azimuthing pods so it drives backwards in ice), most of the support services for a supercarrier moved to the AOR
• diesel powered roll-on/roll-off vehicle carrier. Carry military vehicles including tanks during war, transport cars for commercial trade during peace.
• upgrade 2 existing coast guard icebreakers so they have mounting points for frigate weaponry, and store the weaponry at a CFB in the arctic. Have an aircrane helicopter available to carry said weaponry to the the ships if/when needed. Designated ships: CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent (our heaviest icebreaker), and CCGS Amundsen (a medium icebreaker).
• buy one or two surplus class 10 nuclear icebreakers from the Russians
• complete the Conservative promise to increase the Canadian Rangers by 500
• not only replace our 17 cargo CC-130 Hercules aircraft with the 'J' model, but the 10 Hercules used for Search And Rescue and the 5 used for mid-air refuelling also with the 'J' model. Complete the purchase of 4 C-17 GlobeMaster 3 aircraft. That is a total of 36 cargo planes, that can fly in a single formation if needed. Develop an unmanned aircraft using 4 jet engines adapted from engines from an A-10 Warthog instead of rotor blades, and able to deploy from the cargo bay of either of these aircraft: 4 container carriers per cargo plane. Each container carrier would carry a 20-foot long, standard width, 2/3 height container; filled with one platoon of unmanned ground vehicles. That's one division of UGVs in a single flight. Harrier 2 or AV-8B or F-35B aircraft would have to be borrowed from NATO allies to escort container carriers, CF-18s would escort the cargo planes. This wing of aircraft would replace an assault carrier; deployed much more rapidly.
• move several Aurora and Arcturus aircraft to Resolute. Conduct arctic patrols from there.
• move the sea port from Nanisivik to Resolute, ensuring all Canadian navy and coast guard ships can dock there, as well as the world's largest container ships and oil tankers. Provide repair, maintenance, and supply services for ships.
• place underwater microphones (passive sonar) for arctic monitoring
• station UAVs at Resolute to patrol the arctic
• complete repairs of our newly purchased submarines
• develop new high-tech weaponry to upgrade our frigates/destroyers: 100kW laser for defence against hypersonic anti-ship missiles, supercavitating mini-torpedo (3" diameter) to take out incoming torpedoes, small unmanned water vehicles (UWV) the same size as a towed array sonar but built as a small surface boat to provide sonar at extended range from the ship and integrated with guidance for the supercavitating mini-torpedo.
• another high-tech weapon: Arctic torpedo: an air dropped modification of a Mark 48 heavy weight torpedo, but with guidance programmed for operating under the ice, and carrier aircraft (CF-18, Aurora) would have a dumb bomb capable of blasting a hole in the ice before dropping the torpedo through that hole.
• Note: RadarSat and RadarSat2 will continue to monitor ships in the arctic. RadarSat can spot ship wakes, but not ships themselves; RadarSat2 has enough resolution to directly spot ships. They are normally used to measure ice and shifting sandbars beneath the ice, to determine safe passage through the arctic.

Overall, some good ideas with lots of not-so good ideas. First off, the cost of all this would be in the tens of BILLIONS, so it’s not all that affordable.

Again, building a runway at Resolute and basing fighters/Auroras there is foolish, simply because the runway will need to be rebuilt every year and the planes can patrol there with help from our aerial refueling planes.

Buying old icebreakers and carriers is a non-starter, especially with our recent history of buying used from the Brits. My guess is used crap from Russia and India will be in much worse shape than the SSKs we got from Britain. We’d be far better off building them ourselves, or if cost is an issue, buying them from a shipbuilding nation like South Korea or Finland.

A nuke icebreaking carrier would be next to useless, as it probably couldn’t get going faster enough launch CF-18s and other planes (at least in icy conditions, which is most of the year). A STOL carrier would make more sense, but still, with aerial refueling, fighters can be based in Yellowknife and patrol the entire Arctic.

I’d far prefer to see three JSS built instead of one nuclear powered icebreaking AOR. It would make far more sense to convert an existing icebreaker (or build a new one) for that job. And the JSS will be RO-RO, so that removes the need for the diesel powered RO-RO transport.

Nanisivik was chosen because it once had a port and will be the easiest to make operational again. The port’s location (at the northern end of Baffin Island) is irrelevant, as it is the ships it supplies that make it important, not the base itself.

There were plans to build an underwater sonar system (Mulroney), but that was cancelled after the Cold War ended. Harper has promised one will be built, but they haven’t even figured out the specs for that yet, so it will be years before it’s done.

[PENATRATOR]

As it stands now, the Navy cannot put to sea all it's ships in it's present fleet due to not enough crews to man them, I think it would be pretty irresponsible governing to buy a carrier, just to watch it rust away in Halifax Harbour because we are short 5000 or so sailors to sail her.

[Scape]

I agree, it would be a great white elephant.

[Winnipegger]

Thank you Canadian_mind and bootlegga, some intelligent and thought out comments.

Penatrator and Scape: Saying what you are against does not say what you are FOR. If you aren't for anything, you don't have an opinion.

In my own defence, regarding one of the intelligent statements made by bootlegga; my idea of purchasing a surplus Russian nuclear powered icebreaker started when Russia completed construction of one in January 2007. It underwent sea trials in the beginning of February 2007 then was parked, never used. I wanted to buy it while it was still brand-new. Unfortunately that isn't an option any more. Their two old icebreakers that needed major work have had their nuclear reactor removed and sent to a ship breaker to be cut apart for scrap metal. The new icebreaker has been pressed into service to replace them. If we acted in 2006 or the spring of 2007 it would have been an option, now that option is lost. Oh well.

I still think two separate ships make more sense: a new AOR with dual-acting hull to supply navy ships with fuel, ammuniton, food, supplies, etc., and a separate RO-RO auto-transport that can transport cars for commercial use during time of peace. Two small ships instead of one big one is more flexible. I would argue to maintain our two existing AOR ships, add one new AOR with dual-acting hull for arctic use, and one RO-RO. That means two smaller ships instead of three large ones: more fliexible and less expensive.

[OldChum]

Yes the nation has to act fast if it serious about protecting our sovenreighty , but then the conservatives will just make or should I say have a deal with America to do this for us in Exchange for control of the resources up there . It is a done deal from the Joe Clark Days . Have a copy of the document in Words just do not know how to put it up here copy paste I guess