Canadian navy readies proposal to acquire amphibious assault ships

[EvanL]

HALIFAX (CP) - The Canadian navy is drafting a plan to acquire two large amphibious assault ships capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks across the seas.
ADVERTISEMENT

The idea, which merited a passing reference in last spring's defence policy statement, is expected to go before the federal Treasury Board next year for consideration, said the director of the navy's maritime requirements.

"We're looking at being more engaged on a global scale," said Capt. Peter Ellis.

"I think it's a critical requirement, especially if we're going to conduct operations at short notice."

The acquisition of the ships, that can resemble small aircraft carriers, are in addition to the navy's $2.1-billion project to build three regular supply ships.

As yet, the navy has not come up with a price tag for the landing ships.

Ellis said the amphibious ships and supply boats serve different purposes.

The transports, complete with a detachment of attack helicopters and landing craft, give the army an ability to land on an empty or partially defended beach anywhere in the world.

Regular supply ships require a port to load and unload.

Defence analyst David Rudd said the navy needs to better explain their planned purchase.

"If want to go in this direction and spend quite a bit of money - you would think that the capability would be quite literally leaping off the pages of their defence policy statement," said Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

Adding to Rudd's concern, the federal Conservatives supported the concept of the landing ships in the last election. But
Prime Minister Paul Martin dismissed the idea during the televised debate, saying Canadians had a choice between a party that supported health care and one that wanted to buy aircraft carriers.

In April, Ottawa laid out a sweeping new plan for its Armed Forces, promising a better-equipped, more efficient and more effective military at home and abroad - all within five years.

The document, which promises to effectively double Canada's overseas capability, includes the purchase of new ships, new aircraft and new vehicles.

But even if the project passes the political hurdles, Rudd says he sees potential problems in selecting a design.

The U.S. is constructing a new class of amphibious assault ships called the San Antonio class, but may not commission all of them. Talk within the Defence industry is that two of the yet-to-be constructed ships could be sold to another country, possibly Canada.

Such a move would be another strike to Canada's struggling shipbuilding industry.

In Rudd's view it would also be a mistake given the size and complexity of the ships, which require a crew of 300 or more to sail.

Ellis said the navy has not settled on any specific design at this time

stupid 10 letters extra

[Resevoir Hogs]

I've read some articles recently about the Joint Suppourt ship program. It would replace the fleet resupply capability as well as act as a heavy sealift ship.

But getting San Antonios would be sooo much better. Now that is a beautiful piece of machinery.

[Midav]

the USN is looking at a new class of LHA to be deployed by 2013. Perhaps this could be made into a joint project

General Characteristics, LHA(R) Class

Builder: TBD (currently undergoing functional design)
Power Plant: Two marine gas turbines, two shafts, 70,000 total brake horsepower
Length: 921 feet (280.7 meters)
Beam: 116 feet (35.4 meters)
Displacement: Approx. 50,100 long tons (50,905 metric tons) full load
Speed: 20+ knots
Aircraft, Depending on mission:
a mix of: F-35B Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) STOVL aircraft; MV-22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotors; CH-53E Sea Stallion helicopters; UH-1YHuey helicopters; AH-1Z Super Cobra helicopters; MH-60S Seahawk helicopters.
Date Deployed: Scheduled for delivery to the fleet in 2013

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.../ship-lha.html

[Kingswat]

Well, this sounds too good to be true.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Well, this sounds too good to be true.

Yea I concur lol I'm such a pessimist about this stuff.

[kutter]

The way our government spends on defence this will probably end up being a couple of tugboats towing barges.

[Resevoir Hogs]

The way our government spends on defence this will probably end up being a couple of tugboats towing barges.

Sadly that has a bit of truth to it.
One of the ideas with the Joint Suppourt Ship project was to have megafloat barges much like the ones we see with the HMS Ocean at times. They would be towed along with the ship at sea and used to transport vehicles and supplies ashore in large quantities. However this is not for amphibious assaults but simple landing of equipment in a area that has already agreed to have you there.

I hope they go the way of the amphib assault ship though. Having such a capability will prove important in the future.

[b.scheller]

Maybe they should spend on getting helicopters that aren't flying deathtraps, or even, spend a little more on the actual soldiers and not some scrap metal. Stupid way to spend the defense budget, on useless equipment, that will never see any use. When's the last time, Canada has had to invade a state by amphibious assault, unless their planning to invade Greenland?

Then of course they can always break out, the billion dollar canoes. The DND would sure buy for the Canadian forces.

It honestly, makes me mad, the way the DND spends money, on the most useless of things. It's not even the first time, first it was those diesel submarines, now it's this? Why the hell, do we even need submarines for. Diesel submarines...

-b.scheller

[Resevoir Hogs]

Maybe they should spend on getting helicopters that aren't flying deathtraps, or even, spend a little more on the actual soldiers and not some scrap metal. Stupid way to spend the defense budget, on useless equipment, that will never see any use. When's the last time, Canada has had to invade a state by amphibious assault, unless their planning to invade Greenland?

It honestly, makes me mad, the way the DND spends money, on the most useless of things. Sadly, it's not just the morons at the Ministry, it's also the bozos in parliament. Might as well, as open up that underground pass of the DND in Ottawa...

-b.scheller

Well both the things you mentioned are projects that are currently underway. We are replacing the Sea Kings with a Sikorsky helicopter. Buying Chinooks apparently too.
Also our clothe the soldier project to re equip us with kit is coming along nicely. And we are getting new armoured cars ontop of the GWagons and Nyalas we already have. As well as new variations on the LAV 3.
So all those things you mentioned are a coming in due time.
But there is also a need to have this capability because our policy is to be effective in a coalition setting. So considering the US, Spain, UK, Italy and most of our allies have this capability we would like to have it as well to be effective in the alliance.
Navies in the west are shifting their attention to the litoral regions as the new primary theatre of operation. So amphibious operations will prove to be more and more frequent in the future. In my view its good to be prepared and not need something rather than need it and not be prepared.

Also we have in the past had to contract commercial ships to transport our vehicles en mass. Does anyone remember the Katie incident a few years back? Defence planners have long thought we need our own Sealift capability and I'd be happy to finally have it.

[Resevoir Hogs]

B you bring up a good point about the Subs. They were a badly thought out procurement. It would have been better to simply buy brand new ones now that the cost of fixing the old ones has ballooned so much.

But the reason we need to maintain at least a small fleet of submarines is this. We need that nucleus of expertise in the submarine business. So that if any future conflict arose that was serious enough for us to need a larger sub fleet, we wouldn't have to start from scratch.
We'd already have capable people to train more submariners and doctrine for the new fleet to follow. Its the same with most things in the CF such as the reserves. Maintaining a structure from which you can grow and add on to in a time of total war.

[NaOH]

Who remembers the last election when the Conservitive party promised to buy these if elected and Martin kept saying we didn't need them?

Looks who's buying them now.

What a dick.

[Kingswat]

Maybe they should spend on getting helicopters that aren't flying deathtraps, or even, spend a little more on the actual soldiers and not some scrap metal. Stupid way to spend the defense budget, on useless equipment, that will never see any use. When's the last time, Canada has had to invade a state by amphibious assault, unless their planning to invade Greenland?

Then of course they can always break out, the billion dollar canoes. The DND would sure buy for the Canadian forces.

It honestly, makes me mad, the way the DND spends money, on the most useless of things. It's not even the first time, first it was those diesel submarines, now it's this? Why the hell, do we even need submarines for. Diesel submarines...

-b.scheller

shhhhh, denmark will know were coming.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

For what?? The current state of the Can Navy is pretty depressing. They're not getting enough operating funds so tha they can train properly and sometimes are required to canibalize crews so as to deploy units. Adding new ships is not going to help things.

Canada ought to just use the $$ to increase the budget to train, train, train and operate, operate, operate. If they're going to gut anything it ought to be the Army since it is really an overrated police force. Put your $$$ into the Navy & Air Force (for God's sakes buy some new C-130's and buy back some large helos--CH47).

AND GET RID OF THOSE ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS "KINGSTON" units. What a waste of good money. They're not even good for training!!!

p.s. And watch out for those pesky Danes. They don't play around--which in Europe makes them a rarity along with the UK.

[Resevoir Hogs]

For what?? The current state of the Can Navy is pretty depressing. They're not getting enough operating funds so tha they can train properly and sometimes are required to canibalize crews so as to deploy units. Adding new ships is not going to help things.

Canada ought to just use the $$ to increase the budget to train, train, train and operate, operate, operate. If they're going to gut anything it ought to be the Army since it is really an overrated police force. Put your $$$ into the Navy & Air Force (for God's sakes buy some new C-130's and buy back some large helos--CH47).

AND GET RID OF THOSE ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS "KINGSTON" units. What a waste of good money. They're not even good for training!!!

p.s. And watch out for those pesky Danes. They don't play around--which in Europe makes them a rarity along with the UK.

You do realise that these new ships aren't intended to "add-on" to the Canadian Navy but to replace our aging Protecteur class suppourt ships.
It would be three replacing two and the newer ships would require less crew as they are more up to date and automated.

Money is now being put into recruiting and expanding the forces. Remember they want to have 3000 more in the reg force and 2000 more in the Reserves on top of simple sustainment recruiting.

Also you mention us buying new C-130s and chinooks. Well its our lucky day because that is a contract that is being rushed through the procurement process. Its a pretty recent development.

The Kingston class aren't without merit. Remember they are used by our Reserves force Navy. Even the UK navy has a patrol ship class in the fleet.
Also with the shift in naval warfare towards the litorals and green and brown water ops as they like to call them, you'll be seeing more and more small sized patrol ships in service with most western navies. (including the USN)

And I certainly take offence to you calling us in the Army a overrated police force. Wanna explain that one? Take a look at what our troops are doing in Afghanistan and you'll see we do the best job we can with what tools and funding we have.

Currently we are enjoying a renewed interest in us by both the public and government. We have boosted spending (of course we'd always like more though). So its promising, but it would be a mistake to gut our army more than already has been, especially now with the mission in Afghanistan.

[Johnny_H]

That and they are a invaluable asset to patrolling our coast against drug smugglers and illegal fishing that constantly cripples the stocks and damages the industry.

The old Oberon boats were constantly out on patrols befor they were decomm'd