[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

An LHD has so much room dedicated to flight deck, well, helicopter hanger, etc. that there's very little room left for tanks or other cargo. And it can't be used at all for commercial transport, so it's very expensive. I don't think Canada will ever get one.

The LHD "helicopter hanger" is actually same space where the vehicles are stored. If you want to transport more vehicles you carry less aircraft, if you want more aircraft you carry less vehicles. Very versatile if you ask me. And if you don't happen to require the amphibious capability you can put the ship to sea with a squadron of F-35's along with AEW, ASW, SAR support helicopters as a STOVL aircraft carrier.

Now when we are buying assets for military use, what possible civilian uses the asset has (or doesn't have) shouldn't even be a consideration. A commerical ro-ro would be an inadequate asset because if you don't have a seaport to offload your forces its useless. If you are facing an opposed landing its useless. It's like comparing the CC-150 to the CC-177, as far as capability is concerned the two are worlds apart.

The JSS as it is planned is a better sealift asset than a lightly militarized ro-ro. At least the JSS will have LCVP's and therefore not require a seaport.

Now keep in mind I'm not saying the CF couldn't use such ro-ro's (they would be useful in SOME circumstances) but they should complement proper sealift assets like LHD's and LPD's not replace them.

$1:

But this thread started talking about the arctic.

Arctic defence is but one portion of the overall Canadian defence picture.

[Winnipegger]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Now when we are buying assets for military use, what possible civilian uses the asset has (or doesn't have) shouldn't even be a consideration.

If you eliminate the means to make military assets affordable, you ensure you get nothing.

Perhaps I haven't repeated sufficiently the combined fleet that I envision.

Arctic defence:
move navy port from Nanisivik to Resolute
move commercial airport from Nanisivik to Arctic Bay
Nanisivik becomes just gone
deploy underwater microphones and UAVs
establish a permanent air base with 8 CF-18 Hornets at Resolute
use Single Otter and Twin Otter aircraft were possible in the arctic, they're more sturdy in the cold
buy the "50 Let Pobedy" icebreaker from Russia, the biggest and most powerful icebreaker in the world. Also the only new icebreaker that Russia just parked (never used); others are 10 to 30 years old.
Rename the "50 Let Pobedy" with a Canadian name, designate for coast guard use.

Navy combat:
1 full carrier, aircraft compliment equivalent to an American Nimitz class supercarrier
1 light carrier, can switch roles simply by changing aircraft compliment: strike carrier, ASW, or assault ship
2 destroyers
2-4 Halifax class frigates
2 Victoria class submarines
1 AOR
1 ro-ro
1 civilian oil tanker for fuel
1 civilian medium container ship
possibly a passenger ship for troops

One cute trick of the light carrier: go in with strike aircraft, then capture an enemy airport or airbase and change aircraft compliment during invasion operations. Unpack helicopters, BAE Harrier 2 or F-35B, AH-1W Cobras from the container ship. The container ship would have a single SuperStallion helicopter with a skycrane configuration to carry a fully loaded container from container ship to assault ship. Cyclone helicopters with a skycrane configuration can carry a container full of UGVs into combat. And containers can hold a lot of ammunition and supplies. During the switch, if the airport isn't ready yet the strike aircraft can be serviced from the full carrier.

The nagging question is whether we need all of this. Would an invasion be better served by flying fighters via mid-air refuelling to an ally air base and attacking from there? That would make a strike carrier obsolete. If we attack from allied land, we could deliver army equipment by ro-ro and invade over land. That would make the assault ship obsolete. Troops could be delivered by aircraft, making the passenger ship obsolete. Are we better off with CC-150 and CC-177? Would still need a ro-ro though.

Note the use of Halifax and Victoria class. In fact I wouldn't replace our current AOR ships; instead build a 3rd AOR and keep our current ones. The one new AOR would be constructed with a dual acting hull, so it would be a heavy icebreaker of its own. Not for ice breaking duty, but so it could go anywhere. The dual acting hull can cross deep ocean in high seas so it could go to the Middle East as well. And give the new AOR a nuclear reactor; no fuel limitations. Eliminating vehicle carrying capability from the new AOR means it would be about the same size as our current AOR ships.

[sasquatch2]

That's quite a shopping list there, Winnipegger..

Regretably, although I enthusiatically endorse it...it unfortunately reflects champagne tastes on a beer budget....

[Normalguy]

Winnipegger, Luv it, luv it, but wouldn't that mean we'd become a "Power" in North America and indeed the world? OMG you'd have Dion, Layton et al having figgin seizures, and alot of people in therapy......

[Winnipegger]

Yea, well, most of it is either stuff we already have or can contract from commercial companies. For example, we already have Iroquois class destroyers. So what do we need? One full carrier, one light carrier, one new AOR, and one ro-ro. Aircraft for our full carrier: take CF-18s out of storage, see if we can repair any of the wrecks, apply the upgrades to all of them. Buy a bunch of surplus S-3B Viking ASW aircraft from the Americans. CF-18s won't be able to land on a light carrier, so the strike wing for the light carrier would require Desault Rafale-M fighters. You could get older French fighters but why? The "50 Let Pobedy" would be surplus from Russia, although a new state-of-the-art ship won't get a huge discount. Single Otter and Twin Otter aircraft are already in the arctic.

We have 33 CF-18A (single seat) aircraft in storage. We have 40 CF-18B (two seat) aircraft total, I don't know how many are in active service but I read somewhere that only 17 are schedule for the upgrades. That should be enough to assign 48 Hornets to the full carrier and 8 to Resolute.

But you may be right: champaign tastes on a beer budget.

Don't be so sure about Dion. That one time I talked to him in June 2006, I mentioned the military equipment the Conservatives want to build and how it's a waste of money. He challenged me, what do we need? This is what I came up with. Do you think it's too much?

[Normalguy]

No too much at all, we have the longest coast line in the world. I see a lot of giberish about soveriegnty in forums like these. Mostly from the anti US paranoia bunch. So how do you ensure Canadian soveriegnty? What you propose is a good start, power pojection!

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

If you eliminate the means to make military assets affordable, you ensure you get nothing.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

1 full carrier, aircraft compliment equivalent to an American Nimitz class supercarrier

Now what exactly is "affordable" about a Nimitz class Supercarrier? Nations with twice our economic power couldn't afford a supercarrier. The only country to EVER operate them is the United States. The Soviet Union tried but never could get one built. Maybe we could sign on with the UK's CVF program, but that still isn't a supercarrier.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Navy combat:
1 full carrier, aircraft compliment equivalent to an American Nimitz class supercarrier
1 light carrier, can switch roles simply by changing aircraft compliment: strike carrier, ASW, or assault ship
2 destroyers
2-4 Halifax class frigates
2 Victoria class submarines
1 AOR
1 ro-ro
1 civilian oil tanker for fuel
1 civilian medium container ship
possibly a passenger ship for troops

There's not much flexibility in that proposed navy...

Now a more realistic plan is to procure two Canberra class amphibs which can operate in the carrier role with F-35B's (we will be buying F-35's anyway), alter the JSS design so it is more biased towards the AOR role (remove the LCVPs) but retain simple ro-ro ability and order four units instead of three. Order four Province class destroyers, replace the Kingstons with the six arctic offshore patrol vessels and procure at least six ships for Mine Countermeasure duties or retain some of the Kingstons for that role. Keep the Victoria subs for now (but pay off the burnt out unit), plan to replace them by 2020 at the latest.

2 Canberra class LHD/Sea Control ship
4 Province Class DDG
12 Refit Halifax FFH
4 JSS (AOR/RO-RO)
3 Victoria class SSK
6 AOPV's
6 Mine Countermeasures ships

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

One cute trick of the light carrier: go in with strike aircraft, then capture an enemy airport or airbase and change aircraft compliment during invasion operations. Unpack helicopters, BAE Harrier 2 or F-35B, AH-1W Cobras from the container ship. The container ship would have a single SuperStallion helicopter with a skycrane configuration to carry a fully loaded container from container ship to assault ship. Cyclone helicopters with a skycrane configuration can carry a container full of UGVs into combat. And containers can hold a lot of ammunition and supplies. During the switch, if the airport isn't ready yet the strike aircraft can be serviced from the full carrier.

You know the Canberra LHD I said we should buy would fit the bill for a "light carrier" exactly.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

The nagging question is whether we need all of this. Would an invasion be better served by flying fighters via mid-air refuelling to an ally air base and attacking from there? That would make a strike carrier obsolete. If we attack from allied land, we could deliver army equipment by ro-ro and invade over land. That would make the assault ship obsolete. Troops could be delivered by aircraft, making the passenger ship obsolete. Are we better off with CC-150 and CC-177? Would still need a ro-ro though.

Allied airbases are not always available, don't count on them. Same with friendly airspace.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Note the use of Halifax and Victoria class. In fact I wouldn't replace our current AOR ships; instead build a 3rd AOR and keep our current ones. The one new AOR would be constructed with a dual acting hull, so it would be a heavy icebreaker of its own. Not for ice breaking duty, but so it could go anywhere. The dual acting hull can cross deep ocean in high seas so it could go to the Middle East as well. And give the new AOR a nuclear reactor; no fuel limitations. Eliminating vehicle carrying capability from the new AOR means it would be about the same size as our current AOR ships.

The old AOR's are worn out ships and need to be replaced with more modern units. Steel is cheap, so the "size of the ship" isn't really an issue. If we are going to procure nuclear powered ships we're better off buying SSN's than building a one off nuclear powered AOR.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

For example, we already have Iroquois class destroyers. So what do we need? One full carrier, one light carrier, one new AOR, and one ro-ro. Aircraft for our full carrier: take CF-18s out of storage, see if we can repair any of the wrecks, apply the upgrades to all of them. Buy a bunch of surplus S-3B Viking ASW aircraft from the Americans. CF-18s won't be able to land on a light carrier, so the strike wing for the light carrier would require Desault Rafale-M fighters. You could get older French fighters but why? The "50 Let Pobedy" would be surplus from Russia, although a new state-of-the-art ship won't get a huge discount. Single Otter and Twin Otter aircraft are already in the arctic.

The 280 destroyers are nearly 40 years old, they don't have 3D radars, they can only carry 29 SM-2's (pitiful compared to most countries AAW ships). The Hornets are getting close to the end of their service lives and wasting a billion dollars on upgrading them isn't a wise use of funds.

The Rafale M and the F-18C/D are very similar sized aircraft. The F-18 can't operate off a light carrier, and the Rafale can't either. To operate those aircraft properly you'd need a carrier at least the size of the CdG CVN (40,000 tons).

If we felt like breaking the bank we could always sign on with the UK's CVF program, those carriers will displace 65,000 tons plus.

[Winnipegger]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Now what exactly is "affordable" about a Nimitz class Supercarrier? Nations with twice our economic power couldn't afford a supercarrier. The only country to EVER operate them is the United States. The Soviet Union tried but never could get one built. Maybe we could sign on with the UK's CVF program, but that still isn't a supercarrier.

You don't understand; the design I came up with is a "full carrier" in terms of ship size, or 40% the size of a Nimitz supercarrier. However, it carries an equal number of aircraft. It would use all Hornets instead of a mix of Hornets and SuperHornets, but it would be roughly equivalent. It would carry twice as many aircraft as the CVF while the ship itself would be smaller. Efficiency and modern automation. The crew would be roughly 10% fewer than the Charles de Gaulle of France, or roughly equal to what the Bonaventure carried. That's 1/5th the crew of a supercarrier. Again, efficiency and automation.

But it still would cost a lot, maybe more than Canada can afford. There's also the nagging question of whether mid-air refuelling and cultivating good relations with allies makes the vary concept of an aircraft carrier obsolete.

$1:

There's not much flexibility in that proposed navy...

It has the mix of a traditional aircraft carrier group. I'm not saying that's the whole navy, just the carrier group. I have a slightly modified configuration for an arctic carrier group. Oh, did I mention I also want the full carrier to have a dual acting hull, so it can cross deep ocean in storms but is also a class 10 icebreaker? Again not for icebreaking duty, but just so it can go anywhere.

Your proposed configuration lists just about all the ships of the navy, not just one battle group. But you are talking about replacing the Iroquois class destroyers with Province class, replacing our AOR ships with JSS, integrating the ro-ro role into a big JSS, and replacing Kingston class ships. I believe in keeping what we have, it's a lot cheaper. For some reason you also list reducing our current inventory of 4 Victoria class submarines to 3. Hmm. Why?

You do have a point about F-35B's though. I have a plan to take an old sister ship of the Bonaventure and give it a massive refit to make it current and relevant. I really believe strongly in maintaining what you have, don't throw away expensive assets. This would send a message that we should NEVER have scrapped the Bonaventure. The only current relevant aircraft that could operate off a CATOBAR carrier of that size is the Dassault Rafale. That means new fighters and different fighters than the full carrier. If the upgrade plan for the full carrier is to F-35C, then designing the light carrier/assault ship for F-35B would make more sense. But do we need a helicopter carrier, and an amphibious assault ship, and a ro-ro? I don't think so. I would delete the landing craft well, and get only one ship. But a helicopter carrier or a ski-jump carrier can't host Viking ASW patrol aircraft, so that role would be lost.

$1:

Allied airbases are not always available, don't count on them. Same with friendly airspace.

That is one of the features of foreign policy that some military types don't get. It's not just about soldiers and hardware, you have to be diplomatic and maintain friendly relations with your allies. Canada has been very good at that, maintaining friends all over the world, but an aggressive stance now will jeopardize it.

$1:

The old AOR's are worn out ships and need to be replaced with more modern units. Steel is cheap, so the "size of the ship" isn't really an issue. If we are going to procure nuclear powered ships we're better off buying SSN's than building a one off nuclear powered AOR.

I disagree. Our AORs are not worn out, and it's our duty to maintain what we got. A coal fired ship may appear obsolete, my first impression was to replace the propulsion system with diesel, but the distance per tonne of fuel carried is actually greater for coal than diesel. You can't start up quickly or make the quick propulsion changes required for a frigate or destroyer, but it may actually be the appropriate system for an AOR. So just update the electronics and carry on.

Oh, by the way, our Victoria class submarines have all the features of a modern nuclear submarine except the nuclear reactor. You could argue for a real SSN, but the Victoria is pretty damn close.

$1:

The 280 destroyers are nearly 40 years old, they don't have 3D radars, they can only carry 29 SM-2's (pitiful compared to most countries AAW ships).

So give them a S1850M radar. And install a crane for missile replenishment that doesn't take any of the VLS cells so it can carry 32 missiles.

$1:

The Rafale M and the F-18C/D are very similar sized aircraft. The F-18 can't operate off a light carrier, and the Rafale can't either. To operate those aircraft properly you'd need a carrier at least the size of the CdG CVN (40,000 tons).

No you don't. That's the thing, I can come up with all sorts of great ideas, and yes you can operate a Rafale off a light carrier. The Rafale actually carries a lot more ordinance than a F-18C/D, and it's a lighter aircraft and has greater wing area to weight ratio resulting in slower landing speed. That permits it to land on a shorter runway. Putting a CdG length runway on a light carrier enables it. If you want to win that argument with me, then push the point of common aircraft with the full carrier. I already said that's a reason to use the F-35B on a light carrier instead of a Rafale.

I'll give you more detail for my light carrier design.
Standard wing: 16 Rafales and 4 Vikings, 4 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters, 2 MQ-9 Mariner UAVs
ASW wing: 13 S-3B Viking ASW aircraft, 4 Rafale-M fighters, same number of helicopters and UAVs
Joint strike wing: 28 Rafale-M, 1 CH-148 Cyclone, 2 UAVs
Assault wing: 24 UGV carrier helicopters, 1 CH-148 Cyclone, 6 BAE Harrier II, 2 UAVs

Reconfiguring that to use F-35B instead of Rafale-M or Harrier II would be more practical for maintenance. However, supporting F-35B for strike requires a ski jump; how do you handle that and support Viking aircraft and a big UAV?

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

You don't understand; the design I came up with is a "full carrier" in terms of ship size, or 40% the size of a Nimitz supercarrier. However, it carries an equal number of aircraft. It would use all Hornets instead of a mix of Hornets and SuperHornets, but it would be roughly equivalent. It would carry twice as many aircraft as the CVF while the ship itself would be smaller. Efficiency and modern automation. The crew would be roughly 10% fewer than the Charles de Gaulle of France, or roughly equal to what the Bonaventure carried. That's 1/5th the crew of a supercarrier. Again, efficiency and automation.

I seriously doubt what you are talking about is even possible, trying to shoehorn a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier airwing into a 40,000 ton carrier.

$1:

It has the mix of a traditional aircraft carrier group. I'm not saying that's the whole navy, just the carrier group. I have a slightly modified configuration for an arctic carrier group. Oh, did I mention I also want the full carrier to have a dual acting hull, so it can cross deep ocean in storms but is also a class 10 icebreaker? Again not for icebreaking duty, but just so it can go anywhere.

Thats just the carrier group? Who's getting the bill for all of this?

$1:

Your proposed configuration lists just about all the ships of the navy, not just one battle group. But you are talking about replacing the Iroquois class destroyers with Province class, replacing our AOR ships with JSS, integrating the ro-ro role into a big JSS, and replacing Kingston class ships. I believe in keeping what we have, it's a lot cheaper. For some reason you also list reducing our current inventory of 4 Victoria class submarines to 3. Hmm. Why?

I propose keeping what is worth keeping and ditching what isn't. The Halifax frigates are rather new and are worth upgrading (unlike the AOR's and the 280's which are pushing 40 and are obsolete), we could also retain half of the Kingstons for Mine Countermeasures and use the other six for parts.

The HMCS Chicoutimi is an 80's era SSK which even if we do repair her won't be ready for service until after 2010. I'd think it a better idea to pocket the money we would have spent on her refit, and put it towards new subs.

$1:

You do have a point about F-35B's though. I have a plan to take an old sister ship of the Bonaventure and give it a massive refit to make it current and relevant. I really believe strongly in maintaining what you have, don't throw away expensive assets. This would send a message that we should NEVER have scrapped the Bonaventure. The only current relevant aircraft that could operate off a CATOBAR carrier of that size is the Dassault Rafale. That means new fighters and different fighters than the full carrier. If the upgrade plan for the full carrier is to F-35C, then designing the light carrier/assault ship for F-35B would make more sense. But do we need a helicopter carrier, and an amphibious assault ship, and a ro-ro? I don't think so. I would delete the landing craft well, and get only one ship. But a helicopter carrier or a ski-jump carrier can't host Viking ASW patrol aircraft, so that role would be lost.

The only two jet aircraft you could fly off a Majestic class CVL would the A-4 Skyhawk and the AV-8B Harrier II (RAFALE is way too large). The ship barely had enough steaming power to get to 25 knots and it only had one rather weak catapult. As far as I know there is only one Majestic class carrier left in existence and its a museum in India.

Do we really want to buy India's garbage? I mean we are a G-7, trillion dollar class economy, we can afford to built new ships and not collect other navies junk hulls.

$1:

That is one of the features of foreign policy that some military types don't get. It's not just about soldiers and hardware, you have to be diplomatic and maintain friendly relations with your allies. Canada has been very good at that, maintaining friends all over the world, but an aggressive stance now will jeopardize it.

Aircrafts carriers then provide you the means to have a more independent foreign policy and not have to worry about kissing arse to get airspace and base access.

I like carriers more and more all the time...

$1:

I disagree. Our AORs are not worn out, and it's our duty to maintain what we got. A coal fired ship may appear obsolete, my first impression was to replace the propulsion system with diesel, but the distance per tonne of fuel carried is actually greater for coal than diesel. You can't start up quickly or make the quick propulsion changes required for a frigate or destroyer, but it may actually be the appropriate system for an AOR. So just update the electronics and carry on.

I don't see what the coal versus diesel argument has to do with the AOR's, as far as a I know they burn fuel oil in their boilers, not coal.

As to whether the AOR's are tired ships or not, ask someone who's served on them post 2000.

$1:

No you don't. That's the thing, I can come up with all sorts of great ideas, and yes you can operate a Rafale off a light carrier. The Rafale actually carries a lot more ordinance than a F-18C/D, and it's a lighter aircraft and has greater wing area to weight ratio resulting in slower landing speed. That permits it to land on a shorter runway. Putting a CdG length runway on a light carrier enables it. If you want to win that argument with me, then push the point of common aircraft with the full carrier. I already said that's a reason to use the F-35B on a light carrier instead of a Rafale.

While I find "outside the box" concepts interesting, there is no way in hell you could operate a Rafale off of a 20,000 ton Majestic CVL. I'm something a history and military buff and have researched the history of the Majestic class.

The Aussies flew A-4's from their Majestic class carrier HMAS Melbourne, and that was pushing the abilities of the ship.

A fully loaded Skyhawk weighs about 25,000 pounds (going by memory here) while a fully loaded Rafale weighs in AT LEAST 50,000 pounds.

As for putting a 40,000 ton carrier's deck onto a 20,000 ton CVL, that will adversely affect seakeeping in quite a few ways (if it doesn't capsize the bloody thing first), from freeboard to stability in high sea states.

If Canada wanted to maintain a serious carrier fleet we should have given the HMCS Magnificent and HMS Leviathan the same slanted deck as Bonaventure, and replaced the F2H Banshees with three squadrons (VF 870, VF 871, "VF 872") of A-4's like the Aussies did. Having three carriers should have allowed us to keep one at sea at all times. The carriers should be able to handle either one squadron of A-4's and nine or so support helicopters in the CVA role, a squadron of trackers and nine support helicopters in the CVS role, or six A-4 plus eight trackers and five support helos for a blended airgroup.



Once the 80's hit we could have retired the three light carriers and replaced them with three Spanish Príncipe de Asturias class STOVL carriers which can accomodate up to 29 aircraft. The airwing would consist of 12 Harrier II's and whatever support helicopters are required.



Or we could try and push the Majestics into the 90's and get the French to build us two CdG's, but thats even more unlikely than the STOVL carriers. The 90's were the era of budget cutbacks, a dual CVN purchase would be impossible.

[Toro]

Question answered.

[Winnipegger]

The same "old equals obsolete" argument. Tiring. And untrue.

First, Protecteur class AOR ships are coal fuelled. They have a 21,000 shaft horsepower steam turbine. Our other ships are all diesel.

Second, I would have preferred nuclear attack submarines, but this is what we got. I don't understand why they are still in dock, one submarine made a show of going out on patrol last year.

Modern technology makes relevant power ships smaller. The trend is to shrink, not expand. So why would we need larger destroyers? New electronics but same old ship

INS Vikrant when it was decomissioned.


Modified for modern aircraft. Note the large catapult, so large it would extend into the runway. There's no point in keeping it separate from the runway if you can't launch and land at the same time, so just put it down the centre of the angled runway. That way the foreward deck becomes all parking.


True, this is a MASSIVE refit. In fact, it's more of a rebuild. Even cutting a pannel into the island to make the lower decks of the aft half narrower to accomodate a parked aircraft. As for aircraft weight, there's a reason I listed the particular number of aircraft; it matches the weight of the last wing the Bonaventure carried.

Spanish or French carrier? Screw that, design a new one ourselves. Keep it small but powerful.

Then again, this all counts on maintaining our current stuff, not replacing destroyers, AOR, subs, coastal patrol craft. If we start replacing everything every couple years, we'll spend all our money with nothing to show for it. We need to keep what we got and add to it.

You still haven't given me a solution to base all of S-3B Viking aircraft for anti-submarine patrols, MQ-9 Mariner UAVs for Aerial Early Warning, CH-148 Cyclone helicopters, and F-35B jump jets from the same carrier.

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

The same "old equals obsolete" argument. Tiring. And untrue.

First, Protecteur class AOR ships are coal fuelled. They have a 21,000 shaft horsepower steam turbine. Our other ships are all diesel.

I could have a field day with you, but I'll take it easy on you because I think you're someone who has their heart in the right spot, but the brain is off the map.

First off, yes the AOR's have a steam turbine, the steam comes from two boilers. However coal is not burned in those boilers, fuel oil is. Its likely been decades since the Canadian Navy operated a coal burning warship. This isn't the early 1900's.

The 280 destroyers have all gas turbine propulsion (COGOG) while the Halifax's use a hybrid diesel/gas arrangement (CODOG), the SSK's use diesel/electric and the Kingstons use diesel only.

$1:

Second, I would have preferred nuclear attack submarines, but this is what we got. I don't understand why they are still in dock, one submarine made a show of going out on patrol last year.

One is fully operational, two are working up to operational status, and one is burnt out. I think its a $$$ issue.

$1:

Modern technology makes relevant power ships smaller. The trend is to shrink, not expand. So why would we need larger destroyers? New electronics but same old ship

A larger destroyer will give us a ship that can carry a respectable amount of weaponry. Here is how the 280's stack up against some other countries new AAW ships (also note that the ships are all larger in addition to being vastly more capable).

Iroquois class (Canada)

Displacement: 4,960 tons full load
Dimensions: 128.92 x 15.24 x 4.42 meters (423 x 50 x 14.5 feet)
Propulsion: 2 shafts, 2 570 KF cruise gas turbines, 12,788 shp; 2 FT4A boost gas turbines, 51,000 shp, 29 knots
Crew: 285
Radar: DA-08 air/surface search, LW-08 air search
Sonar: SQS-510 hull/VDS suite
Fire Control: 2 STIR
EW: SLQ-501 intercept, SLQ-503 jammer, 2 decoy, SLQ-25 Nixie
Aviation: midships helicopter deck with Beartrap and dual hangars; 2 CH-124 helicopters
Armament:1 29 cell VLS (Standard SM-2MR), 1 76 mm OTO DP, 1 20 mm Phalanx CIWS, 2 triple 12.75 inch torpedo tubes

F100 class (Spain)

Displacement: 5,802 tons full load
Dimensions: 146.7 x 17.5 x ?? meters (481 x 57.5 x ?? feet)
Propulsion: 2 shafts, 2 Bazan/MTU cruise diesels; 2 LM2500 boost
gas turbines, 47,494 shp, 29 knots
Crew: 229 +16 flag + 5 transients
Aviation: aft helicopter deck & hangar with RAST; 1 SH-60B
Radar: SPY-1D multifunction
Sonar: DE1160 bow
Fire Control: Aegis AAW system, DLT-309 ASW system, 2 Mk 99 missile
control with SPG-62 radars
EW: Aldebaran & Mk9000, 2 SRBOC, SLQ-25A Nixie
Armament: 1 48 cell VLS (Standard SM-2MR, ESSM), 8 Harpoon SSM,
1 5/54 DP, 1 20 mm Meroka CIWS, 4 12.75 inch torpedo tubes, 2 20 mm
Spanish design with AEGIS AAW system and a powerful ASW capability.

De Zeven Provincien class (Netherlands)

Displacement: 6,044 tons full load
Dimensions: 144.2 x 17.2 x 5.2 meters (473 x 56.5 x 17 feet)
Propulsion: 2 shafts, 2 cruise diesels; 2 SM1A boost gas turbines,
28-30 knots
Crew: 202 (incl. flag)
Aviation: deck and hangar for 2 helicopters
Radar: SMART-L and APAR radars
Sonar: Atlas-Werke hull mounted
Armament: 32 vertical launch SM-2MR, 32 vertical launch ESSM (Sea
Sparrow), 8 Harpoon SSM, 1 5/54 DP, 2 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS, 2 20 mm,
4 12.75 inch torpedo tubes

Kongo class (Japan)

Displacement: 9,485 tons full load
Dimensions: 528 x 68 x 20.4 feet
Propulsion: 4 LM2500 gas turbines, 2 shafts, 102,160 shp, 30 knots
Crew: 300
Aviation: Aft platform only
Radar: 4 SPY-1D multifunction
Sonar: OQS-102 bow (SQS-53), OQR TACTASS towed (SQR-19)
Fire Control: Aegis AAW system, 3 missile fire control radars
EW: NOLQ-1&2 intercept, OLT-3 jammer, 4 SRBOC, SLQ-25 Nixie
Armament: 1 61 cell VLS, 1 29 cell VLS (90 SM-2MR & VLASROC),
8 Harpoon SSM, 1 5/54 DP, 2 20 mm Phalanx CIWS, 2 triple 12.75 inch
torpedo tubes

Type 124 (Germany)

Displacement: 5,960 tons full load
Dimensions: 143 x 17.2 x 7 meters meters (469 x 56 x 22.4 feet)
Propulsion: 2 shafts; 2 cruise diesels, 19,848 bhp, 1 LM2500 boost
gas turbine, 32,500 shp, 29 knots
Crew: 225 + 14 flag
Aviation: helicopter deck and hangar for 2 Lynx helos
Radar: APAR 3-D multifunction
Sonar: DSQS-21B
EW: FL-1800S II intercept, chaff
Armament: 32 cell VLS (24 SM-2MR and 32 ESSM), 8 Harpoon SSM, 2 21-cell
RAM launchers, 76 mm OTO DP, 2 triple 12.75 inch torpedo tubes, 2 20 mm

Type 45 (UK)

Displacement: approx. 7,200 tons full load
Dimensions: 151 x 20 meters
Propulsion: gas turbine, 2 shafts, 29 knots
Crew: 190 + 45 spare
Aviation: helicopter deck and hangar for 1 helicopter
Radar: SAMPSOM multi function phased array, S1850 air searc
Sonar:
Fire Control: PAAMS system
EW:
Armament: 48 cell Sylver VLS (ASTER-15/30 missiles), 4.5" gun, CIWS,
12.75" torpedo tubes

And if the trend is towards smaller ships then why are navies replacing older ships with signifigantly larger ones? I can name numerous examples. The trend is towards larger vessels, not smaller ones. Can you give me any examples where a class of ship has been replaced with one of smaller displacement?

US Supercarrier classes (20,000 ton growth from Forrestal to Nimitz)

Forrestal class: 80,000 tons
Kitty Hawk class: 82,000 tons
Enterprise class: 93,500 tons
Nimitz class: 100,000 tons

Canadian FF/DDE/FFH (2,800 ton growth from Prestonian to Halifax)

Prestonian class: 2,000 tons
St. Laurent class: 2,800 tons
Annapolis class: 3,400 tons
Halifax class: 4,800 tons (low estimate)

Norway (3,000 ton growth)

Olso class: 2,100 tons
Fridtjof Nansen class: 5,100 tons

I could do this all day, but searching for the specific tonnages is getting tiresome.

$1:

True, this is a MASSIVE refit. In fact, it's more of a rebuild. Even cutting a pannel into the island to make the lower decks of the aft half narrower to accomodate a parked aircraft. As for aircraft weight, there's a reason I listed the particular number of aircraft; it matches the weight of the last wing the Bonaventure carried.

And when it comes right down to it you will spend almost as much, if not more money rebuilding this old ship from the keel up than it would cost to build a new one from scratch, that was designed from the get go to handle modern planes.

$1:

Then again, this all counts on maintaining our current stuff, not replacing destroyers, AOR, subs, coastal patrol craft. If we start replacing everything every couple years, we'll spend all our money with nothing to show for it. We need to keep what we got and add to it.

The destroyers and AOR's are nearly 40 years old. That is not a "couple years" by any stretch of the imagination. Warships don't have infinite lifespans you know...

$1:

You still haven't given me a solution to base all of S-3B Viking aircraft for anti-submarine patrols, MQ-9 Mariner UAVs for Aerial Early Warning, CH-148 Cyclone helicopters, and F-35B jump jets from the same carrier.

This one is easy...


USMC operate their Harrier II's off these ships without the benefit of a ski jump, so the lesson to learn is if you have enough deck for a rolling start the jump is optional.

But if you need to have one, place the jump at the extreme bow in place of one catapult, but keep the angled deck, arrestor wires, and port catapult. I don't see why that wouldn't work.

[danikyvor]

I think it's only fair that we jointly manage the Arctic Ocean...after all, Alaska lies on the Beaufort so...really the US, whether we like it or not, have vested interest in that area. If it was the North Atlantic on the other hand, I'd tell them to bugger off and look after everything south of Maine.

[Winnipegger]

U.S. Guided Missile Cruisers

Virginia class
built 1972-1980
in commission 1976-1998
Light Displacement: 10,663 tons
Full Displacement: 11,666 tons
Dimensions: 586 x 63 x 32 feet

Ticonderoga class
class ship built: January 22, 1983
ships built: 27, ships still in active service: 22
Displacement: 9,500 tons
Dimensions: 173 x 17 x 9.5 metres (567 x 55 x 31 feet)
The Ticonderoga class cruiser uses the Aegis system, including a 4 megawatt phased array radar. Media calls them Aegis cruisers.
It was built on the same hull as the Spruance class destroyer.

We are also getting into the era where navies build bulk up their ships to be ever bigger, until they're too big to be practical so replace them with a smaller category ship. For example, bulking up destroyers until destroyers are replaced by frigates. Our Halifax class frigates are bigger than World War 2 destroyers, and much more flexible.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

USMC operate their Harrier II's off these ships without the benefit of a ski jump, so the lesson to learn is if you have enough deck for a rolling start the jump is optional.

But if you need to have one, place the jump at the extreme bow in place of one catapult, but keep the angled deck, arrestor wires, and port catapult. I don't see why that wouldn't work.

Yea, but without the ski jump they can't launch with maximum bomb load. They launch with a reduced bomb load, the flat deck was built to accommodate helicopters.

Putting sky jump on one side of the bow wile retaining an angled flight deck is a great idea! That would do it. It would require a totally new ship, it couldn't be retrofitted onto the Vikrant, but you obviously don't want the Vikrant anyway. You could keep the new ship roughly the same displacement as a Majestic class carrier, but with squared bow like a modern LHD rather than tapered bow like the Majestic. Actually the older U.S. Tarawa class LHA also had a tapered bow. A square bow would permit the ramp (ski jump) on one side and parking on the other. The angled flight deck may have to be more than 8° to avoid wings of Viking aircraft clipping the ski jump. If it's a new ship, though, that would be easy.

I started looking at a light carrier for anti-submarine patrols, then added strike and assault capabilities to make it flexible.

[Winnipegger]

dimoreien dimoreien:

I think it's only fair that we jointly manage the Arctic Ocean...after all, Alaska lies on the Beaufort so...really the US, whether we like it or not, have vested interest in that area. If it was the North Atlantic on the other hand, I'd tell them to bugger off and look after everything south of Maine.

Back to the topic of the thread, eh? We gave up on that because obviously the answer is no. The US dominates anything they are involved in, they would assume total control, it wouldn't be a partnership. Most importantly, under president George W. Bush the US is claiming the Northwest Passage is an international water way, and the border between Canada and the US through the Beaufort sea leans 30° into our waters. There can be no cooperation as long as they are trying to take our territory.