Navy plans to deploy unmanned aircraft on frigates; orders s
BartSimpson @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:55 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Actually, I had looked at that..... & etc.
Excellent post! Very well thought out!
PENATRATOR @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:02 pm
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Or we could get this? 
Good luck finding enough Sailors and Airmen to sail it.
uwish @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:45 pm
about 90 AC and 5000 personnel. Don't forget you never send a carrier alone, it needs surface ships for protection and ideally, a sub tagging along as well.
This means you would put 75% of Canada's deployable fighters and 1/3 the sailors and aircrew on one ship.
Sounds pretty sad considering the Americans have what 12 carriers?
we would need to effectively double the CF in manpower, equipment etc just to have one AC carrier (super carrier that is).
bootlegga @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I think Clog was kidding...
Winnipegger @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:27 pm
Well, if you built the Canadian carrier I described it would use a lot of automation. Since the ship size in terms of displacement would be the same as the Charles de Gaulle, a reasonable estimate of ship's compliment would be the same as that ship. Ship's company: 1,350; Air Wing: 600. Perhaps a little less with more automation; ships compliment equal to the HMCS Bonaventure: 1,200.
For escort we could send 2 Iroquois class destroyers and 2 Halifax class frigates, 1 Victoria class submarine, and a new AOR with nuclear reactor and the same dual acting hull, also a class 10 icebreaker. When operating in the arctic the two Halifax class frigates would be replaced by the 2 coast guard heavy icebreakers with their weapons mounted. That's one reason I was so upset when they sank the HMCS Huron this spring. We would really need all 4 destroyers: one for the Atlantic, one for Pacific, and 2 to escort the carrier. I also wanted to upgrade the destroyers with more automation, replace some bulkheads with corrugated Nomex sandwich instead of steel to reduce weight, and install the S1850M radar. That's the same radar as the new British Type 45 destroyer. We only have 3 destroyers left now. I guess sinking the Huron commits us to not doing this.
Using the 33 stored CF-18s as the core of the air wing means we keep our air force as-is, but it would still put almost half of our deployable fighters on one ship and require hiring new pilots.
Rather than building a full carrier of our own, we could buy one of America's old supercarriers. They have 4 decommissioned supercarriers: Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, and John F. Kennedy. None are nuclear. America might be convinced to sell us one, they have been trying to get us to increase military spending, but they are obsolete; there's a reason they were decommissioned. The first 3 ships are Forrestal class, including the Forrestal itself; their complement is about 5,000, but the John F. Kennedy has (had) a complement of 3,297 plus air wing. The "Big John" was a modified Kitty Hawk class carrier but it was so modified the U.S. navy considered it a class of its own. The cost of crew salaries alone would be prohibitive for Canada.
Scape @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:56 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
I think Clog was kidding...
Did it matter?
DrCaleb @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:52 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
For escort we could send 2 Iroquois class destroyers and 2 Halifax class frigates,
Forgive me for being pedantic - but it's <i>Tribal</i> class destroyers, and <i>City</i> class frigates.
But otherwise,
I wondered if an icebreaker carrier was possible, when I was dreaming about the 'Peacekeeping Supership' that was tossed around a couple years back.
Winnipegger @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:57 pm
$1:
National Defence plans to conduct a study next year on how the country's frigates can safely launch and recover unmanned aerial vehicles - UAVs - at sea, and is asking for private companies with expertise to step forward.
Well, there's this American UAV: ScanEagle by Insitu. A reseller is Boeing.
Video of first flight
A couple years ago I worked for a firm just outside Winnipeg that makes an autopilot for miniature UAVs. I could develop a UAV that uses the same capture system as ScanEagle, using the Canadian made autopilot.
Winnipegger @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:00 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Forgive me for being pedantic - but it's <i>Tribal</i> class destroyers, and <i>City</i> class frigates.
Actually I believe it was called Iroquois class after the TRUMP upgrade. As for Halifax vs City class, that depends which source you read.
::Edit:: The Canadian Navy website lists our fleet. They used the names Iroquois class and Halifax class.
Canadian Navy, The Fleet
DrCaleb @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:04 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Forgive me for being pedantic - but it's <i>Tribal</i> class destroyers, and <i>City</i> class frigates.
Actually I believe it was called Iroquois class after the TRUMP upgrade. As for Halifax vs City class, that depends which source you read.
I'm old fashioned. I go by what they were called in the specs.
If they want to call them 'Iroquois'/'Halifax' - hey, whatever.
Arctic_Menace @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:17 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Well, if you built the Canadian carrier I described it would use a lot of automation. Since the ship size in terms of displacement would be the same as the Charles de Gaulle, a reasonable estimate of ship's compliment would be the same as that ship. Ship's company: 1,350; Air Wing: 600. Perhaps a little less with more automation; ships compliment equal to the HMCS Bonaventure: 1,200.
For escort we could send 2 Iroquois class destroyers and 2 Halifax class frigates, 1 Victoria class submarine, and a new AOR with nuclear reactor and the same dual acting hull, also a class 10 icebreaker. When operating in the arctic the two Halifax class frigates would be replaced by the 2 coast guard heavy icebreakers with their weapons mounted. That's one reason I was so upset when they sank the HMCS Huron this spring. We would really need all 4 destroyers: one for the Atlantic, one for Pacific, and 2 to escort the carrier. I also wanted to upgrade the destroyers with more automation, replace some bulkheads with corrugated Nomex sandwich instead of steel to reduce weight, and install the S1850M radar. That's the same radar as the new British Type 45 destroyer. We only have 3 destroyers left now. I guess sinking the Huron commits us to not doing this.
Using the 33 stored CF-18s as the core of the air wing means we keep our air force as-is, but it would still put almost half of our deployable fighters on one ship and require hiring new pilots.
Rather than building a full carrier of our own, we could buy one of America's old supercarriers. They have 4 decommissioned supercarriers: Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, and John F. Kennedy. None are nuclear. America might be convinced to sell us one, they have been trying to get us to increase military spending, but they are obsolete; there's a reason they were decommissioned. The first 3 ships are Forrestal class, including the Forrestal itself; their complement is about 5,000, but the John F. Kennedy has (had) a complement of 3,297 plus air wing. The "Big John" was a modified Kitty Hawk class carrier but it was so modified the U.S. navy considered it a class of its own. The cost of crew salaries alone would be prohibitive for Canada.
For escort we could send 2 Iroquois class destroyers and 2 Halifax class frigates, 1 Victoria class submarine, and a new AOR with nuclear reactor and the same dual acting hull, also a class 10 icebreaker. When operating in the arctic the two Halifax class frigates would be replaced by the 2 coast guard heavy icebreakers with their weapons mounted. That's one reason I was so upset when they sank the HMCS Huron this spring. We would really need all 4 destroyers: one for the Atlantic, one for Pacific, and 2 to escort the carrier. I also wanted to upgrade the destroyers with more automation, replace some bulkheads with corrugated Nomex sandwich instead of steel to reduce weight, and install the S1850M radar. That's the same radar as the new British Type 45 destroyer. We only have 3 destroyers left now. I guess sinking the Huron commits us to not doing this.
Using the 33 stored CF-18s as the core of the air wing means we keep our air force as-is, but it would still put almost half of our deployable fighters on one ship and require hiring new pilots.
Rather than building a full carrier of our own, we could buy one of America's old supercarriers. They have 4 decommissioned supercarriers: Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, and John F. Kennedy. None are nuclear. America might be convinced to sell us one, they have been trying to get us to increase military spending, but they are obsolete; there's a reason they were decommissioned. The first 3 ships are Forrestal class, including the Forrestal itself; their complement is about 5,000, but the John F. Kennedy has (had) a complement of 3,297 plus air wing. The "Big John" was a modified Kitty Hawk class carrier but it was so modified the U.S. navy considered it a class of its own. The cost of crew salaries alone would be prohibitive for Canada.
And you're a Liberal?! Damn, you need to get into office and run this country!!!
Arctic_Menace @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:18 pm
$1:
I was dreaming about the 'Peacekeeping Supership' that was tossed around a couple years back.
Hmm? You have piqued my curiosity...
DrCaleb @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:26 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
$1:
I was dreaming about the 'Peacekeeping Supership' that was tossed around a couple years back.
Hmm? You have piqued my curiosity...
It was a Harper election 'trial balloon'. Big ship, carrying a hospital, helicopters, construction equipment, relief supplies, water purification facilities . . that sort of stuff. Deployable to places like the Indian Ocean for the Tsunami, New Orleans for Katrina, Peru for the earthquake - natural disasters. And could also carry tanks, APC's, troops etc for deployment overseas to support peacekeeping missions.
I don't think it was considered feasible, but I thought it was a great idea.
Scape @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:35 pm
An amphibious helicarrier would be the best platform for the 'Peacekeeping Supership'.
Arctic_Menace @ Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:00 pm
Aren't we already planning to buy or design our own Joint Support Ships?