Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

What makes you think a Majestic class carrier just has to be limited to the deck size of the day it was constructed? The HMS Ark Royal (R09) (construction 1942-1950) had a 5.5° partially angled flight deck 112 feet (34m) wide. From 1966-1970 she underwent her final refit, giving her a 8.5° angled flight deck extended 171 ft (50m) wide. This demonstrates you can change the deck width. The Brazilian Minas Gerais was a Colossus class carrier with 8.5° angled flight deck, but I'm only proposing an 8° angle like the HMCS Bonaventure.

The HMS Ark Royal (91) (construction 1934-1938) had two hangar decks; that's where I got the idea for the full carrier. But rather than a 14' ceiling, I included a 5.334m (17'6") ceiling for forward hangars, 4.8m ceiling for the helicopter hangar, and 61m ceiling for the upper aft hanger with a patch of ceiling 8m high. That patch is a cut-out of the O3 deck, the sole deck between the upper hangar and the flight deck. The structure of that deck is a truss to support the flight deck, but it also has the greatest floor area of any single deck. This means the 8m tall patch of ceiling in the repair hanger is tall enough to service the rotor mast of helicopters, but he ceiling is the underside of the flight deck. If you want to talk about military equipment design, read history.

Let's step back and look at the larger picture. There are a few competing principles to consider with all of this. Canada needs a sustainable economy, one major feature of sustainability is that durables goods have to be durable. There is a scam in the current economy, the belief that everything is disposable. Sales people try to convince you that anything you have is "old" so you have to throw it out and buy a new one. Tools, jewellery, pots and pans, and other goods used to be passed down over multiple generations. Today the sales people make you think everything is obsolete as soon as you leave the store. Cars are designed to last just a few years. One automechanic pointed out a change in the design of the front suspension of a model he has to service. It the stabilizer arm used to be held with a steel ball bearing, now it's held with a nylon bushing. The excuse is you can buy several nylon bushings for the cost of one steel ball bearing, but reality is the labour cost alone to replace that bushing just once is several times the parts cost of a steel ball bearing. Another example: I saw a guy from Via Rail talk about their passenger cars; they were 50 years old and showed no sign of rust. Their bodies were made of stainless steel. Their interior has been updated several times, but the cars themselves are fine, and will last at least another 50 years. But car bodies are made of mild steel, not stainless; they rust in just a few years. This is well known. Car parts are designed to wear out; engineers know how to make one that lasts. The excuse is to get you to re-buy the same car over and over again, each time paying full retail. They call it "built-in obsolescence", I call it sabotage. To make matters worse, there used to be something called a "core" to replacement parts. For example, when they replace an alternator they give you a "core" credit for the value of the non-working alternator, deducting that credit from the price of a rebuilt one. Then they send the alternator to get re-wound. The subcontractor removes the burnt wire, keeps the bearings and case and stator and rotor, replacing the wire with new wire. The "core" was different for each engine part, but most parts and one. But car companies didn't get customers buying new parts if they kept fixing old ones, so they had that practice killed. Now old alternators are thrown in the land fill, you have to buy a new one. Working people will never get ahead if our wealth is consumed by constantly replacing the stuff we already have; getting ahead requires keeping what you have and adding new things to it.

A ship is an extreme example of this. A hull is a hull is a hull. It's just a piece of shaped steel, it doesn't wear out. It's not like aircraft bodies, made of thin sheet metal that undergoes pressurization/depressurization cycles that causes microfractures. The thick hull of a ship just keeps going and going; it doesn't get microfractures, it's too thick. You may have to replace machinery with moving parts, update electronics with new ones, but the hull is good until the design is obsolete. Ships haven't changed much in the last half century, our icebreakers and destroyers and frigates do not have obsolete hulls. Sinking a destroyer just to replace it with a new one is a colossal waste of money. Do you realize how much a ship costs?

The Conservative government said they want to throw away all our 4 destroyers and 12 frigates, replacing them with 14 Province class destroyers. I guess they found out the price, now they want to upgrade our frigates. Throwing away our capital warships is a waste of money, we should keep what we have and add to the fleet. Besides, the Conservative plan would leave us 2 fewer ships; that moves in the wrong direction. They also said they want to scrap our 2 AOR ships, replacing them with 2 new ones but during construction we would have none. Needless to say the Navy is upset with having no AOR ships during that time.

So one principle is proper maintenance. Another principle is operations cost. A third principle is whether an aircraft carrier as a concept is already obsolete. I've heard people go on about how World War 1 or World War 2 battles demonstrated the superiority of a carrier vs a battleship with cannons. But today's war ships don't use cannons, they use missiles. The age of missiles changes everything. The range of a missile is extreme; an Iroquois class destroyer with Vertical Launch System can fire large missiles over extreme range. You could argue that an Aegis class cruiser carries 88 missiles while the Iroquois class has only 29, but it's just a numbers game. (Technical note: the Iroquois class has 32 slots in its VLS, but normally carries 29 missiles. I can only guess it's due to weight limits. That's one reason I want to reduce weight of its internal bulkheads.) Furthermore, land based aircraft can cross the Atlantic, and with mid-air refuelling you have to ask why you need a carrier. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to build more attack aircraft with a few mid-air tankers than a carrier? You would have money left over to hire more army soldiers, guys who could capture an airport in enemy territory. Once you capture an airport, further air operations can be based there.

So you see one reason I examined buying a Majestic class carrier is to demonstrate to those idiots who had the HMCS Bonaventure cut up is that was a very bad decision. With upgrades (a lot of upgrades) a ship of exactly the same class and age could be a relevant ship today. The reason for raising the HMCS Huron is the same, to demonstrate to those who gave the order that they made a stupid decision.

Another principle is technical advancement. As technology improves ships become more powerful and smaller. You don't need a large ship when a high-tech small one will do. That's another reason I argue we don't need bigger ships, just high tech equipment on our existing frigates and destroyers. If a single Exocet missile can take out a ship, why do you need a lot of them?

So on one hand a full carrier with an air wing equal to an American supercarrier may look impressive, but is it a practical war machine? These arguments conclude we're better off with an air force base at Resolute.

Another principle is the message we send to the world. Canada had the 3rd largest navy at the end of World War 2; only USA and the UK had larger navies. Ok, Germany and Japan had larger navies, but they were at the bottom of the ocean at the end of World War 2. Still, ours was 3rd or 5th in the world depending how you count it. Our military had 1.1 million serve during the war, we had 900,000 at its height. The national population was only 11 to 12 million at the time (we had some babies during the war). That demonstrates just how many soldiers we recruited. After the war Canada advocated disarmament, and decided to lead by example. We have been strong advocates of peace and disarmament ever since. We do need a strong military to defend this great nation, and a peace keeping force that can sustain the lead in that noble venture, but do we want to join the world in an arms build-up? Some nations will not treat us with credibility unless we can give them a bloody nose, but do we want to bully or participate in an arms race?

As for war being about killing people; it's more complicated than that. The US is seeing how complicated it can be. War has been called the last resort of politicians; Iraq demonstrates the link to politics. An occupying army can not hold a country against its will when the occupier claims to practice freedom, democracy, and justice. If you want to "pacify" the "insurgents" of an occupied nation, you can only do so with bloody oppression. If you're not prepared to be a vicious, ruthless dictator then you will never be able to hold an occupied country. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the UN sent a force to remove Iraq in 1991. The orders were to remove Iraq and get out. The US insisted they lead the force, since they provided the most military their demand was granted. President George Bush Sr. wanted to ensure it wouldn't become another Vietnam. He ordered the military to have a clear objective, to achieve that objective then get out. They did so; when General Norman Schwarzkopf said the war was over it was time to go home, that meant the war was over it was time to go home. Unfortunately some damn fools in Washington decided to create "no fly zones". That perpetuated the war. Their excuse was Iraq disobeying the UN, but when they asked the UN for permission to create "no fly zones" the answer was No. Enforcing "no fly zones" anyway was as much a violation of the UN as anything Iraq did. Then George Jr. decided to invade Iraq again, and that has become the Vietnam war that George Sr. was afraid of. D'oh!

So how do you put all this together? What should we build for the military? How's this for a list.
• Keep our current 2 AOR ships. Refit with a diesel engine.
• Build one new nuclear AOR ship with a dual acting hull, icebreaker class 10. That's the same thing as JSS, but I'm emphasizing icebreaker capability.
• Build one diesel auto transport ship for tanks, APCs, and other Army heavy equipment. For a "super peacekeeping mission" it would work with the new AOR/JSS.
• Raise the Huron and repair it, just to "stick it to" those who decided to sink it.
• Refit our destroyers with the S1850M radar. "The S1850M is advertised as being capable of fully automatic detection, track initiation and tracking of up to 1,000 targets at a range of 400 kilometres (250 miles). It is also claimed to be highly capable of detecting stealth targets, and is able to detect and track outer atmosphere objects, making it capable of forming part of a Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence system."
• Extend the CCGS Amundsen, converting it to a heavy icebreaker. Install frigate weapon mounting points on both the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent and CCGS Amundsen.
• Built a full Canadian Forces Base at Resolute: army, navy, and air force. Move the deep water port from Nanisivik to Resolute, ensure the new port can dock the largest oil tanker or container ship in the world. Base CF-18 Hornet and CP-140 Aurora aircraft there, and UAVs. Store frigate weapons for our dual use heavy icebreakers there.
• Build a deep water port at Iqualuit, primarily for commercial shipping.
• Buy the "50 Let Pobedy" from Russia, use it to open a shipping channel through Hudson's Bay for Churchill, open a channel to Iqualuit, open and patrol the Northwest Passage.
• Send survey crews via Twin Otter aircraft to survey the Alpha Ridge under the polar ice pack. Registering this with the UN before 2013 will not only maintain our current Arctic borders, it will extend it slightly to the west, north of Alaska.
• Permanently place passive sonar on the arctic sea bed. That's underwater microphones.

This raises another point. Many of my friends, including and especially the staunch Conservatives, want to either maintain our Twin Otter aircraft or replace them with new Canadian aircraft. Canadians are proud of our Arctic workhorse. But the military wants to replace them with C-27J Spartan aircraft. That one is built in Italy. A Spanish company complained that they wanted to bid for the contract, but neither is Canadian. De Havilland built the Twin Otter, Bombardier bought de Havilland, so why don't we ask Bombardier to develop a replacement for the Twin Otter?

There are a few other pieces of military equipment I would like to see developed:
• A design study to flesh-out the full carrier.
• Polarimetric radar, capable of penetrating ocean water and detecting a submarine from an aircraft. Resolution wouldn't be very good, but enough to detect something is down there. Necessary to detect titanium hull submarines.
• UWV: Unmanned Water Vehicle. A small surface vessel roughly the size of a towed sonar array. This tiny boat can be remotely piloted to its station, follow the deploying vessel at limited speed to maintain relative position, and return for recovery. Hull mounted sonar provides extended range for underwater surveillance, including detection of supercavitating torpedoes.
• Air launching a torpedo over artic ice: To air drop a torpedo into artic water, you need a hole in the ice. An air-to-ground bomb can blast such a whole. Then the aircraft can circle around and launch a light torpedo into that hole. The torpedo would then actively home in on its target.
• Torpedo that can be surface launched from the stern of an icebreaker. Ensure the impact with chucks of floating ice doesn't detonate the torpedo or damage its sensors. This may require the torpedo to turn 180° to acquire its target.
• Design our own ship nuclear reactor.

The Russian design that can refuel in 3-7 days; it uses a cylinder that contains the uranium fuel elements and the primary heat exchange loop. Like the CanDU reactor it uses water both as coolant and as neutron moderator. That means if it looses coolant the reactor shuts down. All that sounds good, but the OK-900A reactor uses uranium that is 90% enriched uranium-zirconium alloy. CanDU reactors use uranium that's not enriched at all, the isotope mix is as it comes out of the mine: 0.71% U235, not 90%. It's also uranium oxide because oxygen is lighter, cheaper, and exposure to neutron radiation does not produce a radioactive isotope. If Canada is to continue without enrichment capability, the reactor must use non-enriched uranium. The OK-900A has fuel load of 150.7kg, assuming a uranium:zirconium molar ratio of 1:1, and assuming the same mass of U235 is required, that would require 15,596kg of non-enriched UO2 fuel. Uh, that's a lot; it would weigh down the ship. How do we resolve that?

I have some other military technology I want developed, but I don't think I should publish them on the internet.

   

An aircraft carrier/icebreaker for defence of arctic sovereignty would be overkill, IMO, but I like the idea of a JSS icebreaker with dual acting hull a great deal. It's nice to see the lateral thinking that goes into your posts, Winnipegger.

In that same spirit I'll suggest the airship as an ideal platform for use in the Canadian arctic:

-Exceptional range and endurance.

-The ability to carry far greater load/armament than an Aurora.

-Stealth (from submarines, where it would be desirable).

-High visibility (to surface vessels, where it would be desirable).

-Vastly greater speed than any surface vessel or submarine.

-No worries about having to break ice.

-Much better anti-submarine platform than an icebreaker (I assume that an icebreaker would have some real problems tracking submarines, and even larger problems avoiding being tracked by submarines).

   

Damn winnipegger, nice posts.

While I believe Canada should focus on defending the home land rather than going out and breaking stuff around the world, remember that in order to defend the country, we must be able to cut-off the enemy supplies en-route, and even at the source.

for instance, for shits and giggles lets say we go to war with Denmark, over Hans Island, they claim the archipelago, our water, we claim Greenland, etc., whatever. sure we could fight off any initial naval component, but eventually they will be sending a large chunk of fighters and troops our way via Greenland, and at some point an amphibious naval assault via the north Atlantic to newfoundland and the Maratimes. It would be better for us in the short and long run to be able to intercept these aircraft and ships carrying troops on their side of the Atlantic, as well as destroying their home based aircraft, military bases and ports, weapons and training facilities, etc. cut off the supply at the source, it's less worry for us at home, less civilian and military casualties on our side is better than having the air and ground war over our country.

Amending my post;

In the future all heavy naval vessels; AOR, JSS, Carriers, and the like should have the whole class ten ice breaking hull you guys were talking about, which I assume is the best. all our future frigates, destroyers, and patrol boats should at least have ice strengthened hull if not the capability to break through 1 - 2 meters of ice.

As for destroyers, our current fleet is obsolete, it would be much better to design 4-6 new destroyers with ice-resistant or ice breaking capability, stealth features, the British radar, etc.

   

You could no more put a CdG sized deck on a Majestic than you could put a Nimitz sized deck on the CdG hull. You can widen the deck and change the width to an extent but you are taking that idea to the extreme which is not operationally possible.

Also I can not for the life of me figure out why you are advocating rebuilding WWII museum ships from the ground up when it would be much more cost effective (and easier) to build a new ship.



Ships wear out, steel bends, steel rusts, steel weakens, ship hulls do not have indefinate lifespans especially when you operate in a harsh environment like the North Atlantic. By the time the Cadillacs were retired the hull plates were dangerously thin, the much more recent Kingston class has been having a problem with hull fatigue and they are only around a decade old.

The ship hull itself is not what costs the major bucks, steel is cheap, its the weapons systems, electronics outfit, etc that costs the real money.

And the Majestics are an obsolete design.



The Halifax class are recieving a billion dollar plus refit and will continue to serve for the next decade or two, the Iroquois class are nearing their 40th birthday, and the hull was never designed for the role it serves in. The TRUMP refit was supposed to be a stop gap until a proper AAW/Command ship could be built. The Iroquois class are mediocre air defence ships compared to what most Western navies operate today or are planning to bring into service.

The plan to decomm the AOR's before the JSS comes online was a budget saving IDEA, the negative response from the Forces likely killed that idea. BTW we are getting at least three JSS to replace the current AOR's not two.



The Iroquois only carry 29 SM-2MR because the other three cells house a crane system to reload the VLS, and in a shooting war anyone in their right mind would choose 88 SM-2MR and the AEGIS package over 29 SM-2MR and the old 2D radar set that the Iroquois has.

If I had the option of a CBG or a land based fighter force that required massive tanker support I would choose the CBG without a second thought, Simply kill the vulnerable tankers and you limit the enemy's ability to operate. Meanwhile you, with your mobile airfield, can send your fighters where ever you please. With the Americans, British, French, Indians, Russians, Chinese, Italians, etc all developing new carriers I think its a little premature to declare the carrier an obsolete asset.



The decision to pay off Bonnie was a stupid one, especially after she has just completed a "mid-life" refit. However even if the Bonnie was kept she would not still be serving today, she would have been replaced with a more modern vessel like the Spanish PdA or the Italian CVS design.

As far as the Huron was concern the decision to pay her off was two fold, first off Maritime Command did not have enough saliors to man her so for a few years before it was decided to SINK EX her she never left port. Secondly the Huron was used as the test ship for the TRUMP program and the refit buggered her up royally, malfunctions with the ships systems were rampant.

Better to strip her for parts for her three sisters than continue to run a malfunctioning ship that, even if it did work properly, you cannot even put to sea because you do not have the sailors to man her.



VLS cells take up a set amount of room, ship size determines possible weapons loadout. Also you do realize that Exocets can be shot down with missiles like the SM-2? Sure you can build a small ship with only four Exocets, but it wouldn't last long even against a relic like the Iroquois class, no matter how advanced the ship is, if it runs out of weapons to fire it is toast, period.



In short? Yes we do, because when the resource starved nations of the world, say China and India deplete their own reserves of water, precious metals, etc. where do you think they are going to turn to support their massive billion plus populations? Resource rich countries with low populations, like Canada and Australia for example, will be what the world wars of the future will be fought over. We need to be prepared to defend ourselves against those who would pillage our resources.



Here's what I have a problem with...

1) On the subject of the AOR's, do a cost comparison. If it costs nearly as much to re-engine and refit the AOR's to JSS technological standards and it would cost to build a new JSS, the choice should be clear. Why spend X amount of dollars to totally refit an old ship when you could spend the same dollars on a totally new vessel? Remember, steel is cheap. Its the installed systems that cost the $$$.

2) The nuclear icebreaking JSS idea sounds interesting, and in a world of unlimited budgets I'd like one, but there are several things I would buy for the CF well before that.

3) Are you referring to a LPD? (Landing Platform Dock) If so we could use several of these ships, hell tiny Netherlands is building two.

4) Raising the Huron, what waste of funds... I won't comment further.

5) How heavy is this radar you want to put on the Iroquois? Will the hull support the weight? Back in the day they wanted to fit APAR on the Halifax class, but it would have made the ship so top heavy that they would be unstable in anything but calm seas. Excess top weight = bad.

6) There is a little issue of the Coast Guard not wanting to take up these roles, maybe reforming the coast guard should have its own thread...

7) Why waste money building another deep water port at Resolute when there is a perfectly good one at Nanisvik across the strait?



If Bombardier wants to bid on the contract I'm sure they are more than welcome too if they can make a competitive product... I don't support spoon feeding this company.



All admirable ideas... but the budget boost required to fund this would be unreal... we'd probably need to spend as much as the US does as a percentage of GDP.



Why? Don't want people stealing your ideas?

   

An Exocet or Harpoon missile fly a mach 4, an SM-2 flies at mach 2.5, you can't shoot down an Exocet with an SM-2. Iroquois class destroyers rely in the decoy and Phalanx 20mm Close-In Weapons System. Halifax class frigates carry RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles that fly at mach 4; warhead too small to damage a ship, but they can shoot down an Exocet. Halifax also has Harpoon missiles.

Actually Iran does operate missile boats, each carry 4 Chinese C802 missiles, NATO reporting name CSS-N-8 Saccade: mach 0.9, range 120km. It's roughly equivalent to an SM-2, not Exocet or Harpoon. The idea is lots of boats at low cost. They're the modern equivalent to a torpedo boat.

Don't want other countries stealing my ideas.

   

A few thoughts,

My step father served on the Bonnie and as much as I would love to see her back I know it's the wrong idea for Canada. Yes, a hull is a hull but a hull is only a hull without equipment and manpower both of which would be in short supply for such a large capital ship. We could do more with lesser ships then one big white elephant. Unless we are intending to go toe to toe with Russia, China or the USA I see no need for such a ship.

There are civilian icebreakers already being used that could easily be commandeered and refitted to serve the country. That's right I said commandeered just like a cop has the same right to take you car if needed in a high speed chase. It would be cheaper to do it that way and we could meet the deadline this way without having to build one from scratch. The civilian contractors would be richly rewarded for the icebreaker, more so then what they would make with it looking for oil and we could stake our claim in the north with certainty. This is the only way that we can do so in the time alloted and be cost effective.

Nuclear power is a great idea for an icebreaker but a political nightmare that would be far more trouble than it would be worth. Simply put that dog won't hunt. The people of Canada have taken pride that we have the ability but have not taken up nuclear arms. To ride against that current of national pride is to do so at ones own peril.

   

Winnipegger

saturn_656


Anyone who has ever been to sea and listened to the ship creak, would not think that ship hulls have indefinite lives.

Ship hulls are very much like truck frames. Overload or over-stress a hull and you are going for a swim. The Bismark apparently did not sink the Hood. A lucky hit by an 8" from the Prinz Eugen started a fire which set off an unarmoured torpedo which caused the Hoods overloaded hull to fail.
Ships which break in half in heavy seas, are merely the victims of metal fatigue or poor design.
Frame members crack and hull plates buckle and another artificial reef results.

The Bonaventure was constantly springing leaks in the late sixties.......it was not abandoned prematurely...it was a floating scrap heap and a death trap.

Scape


Yes, you make a good point. The velcro shoes crowd who listen to Taliban Jack fear anything nuclear. These folk have no idea that nuclear propulsion is not nuclear weaponry.

   

Bonaventure had a major refit in 67 and was scrapped in 70 but it was not because it was a leaky 'rust bucket' you fucking puke.

   

Sorta funny that everytime the Bonnie put to sea the escort was late getting back into port because the Bonnie had to slow down because she had sprung another leak.......or sink.

A floating scrap heap.

Sailors bitch at lot about that sorta thing.

Refits especially when applied to Steam ships involve retubing boilers, etc. These refits are usually lengthly which allow updates of weapons systems and sensors. Worn out hulls just keep cracking.

   

The Harpoon missile is sub sonic, the Exocet is a little faster but it also is definately not a "Mach 4" missile.

And yes, you can shoot down ASM's with SM-2, thats one of the uses of the missile, to defend task groups from hostile aircraft, ships, and missiles. Sea Sparrows also can be used against small surface craft to great effect.



The C-802 is a subsonic ASM like the Harpoon and Exocet. And I wouldn't be trying to emulate the Iranian navy, they are nothing to write home about. The Canadian Pacific Fleet probably has more firepower than the entire Iranian navy.

   

Seriously, was the umbilical cord wrapped around your neck when you were born? If your going to insult the ship and crew of the bonnie at least back it up. My 6 year old niece has more going on upstairs than you. At this point you could say the sky is blue and I would have to go outside to check because I CAN'T BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY. Your a coward and a fool.

   

You're right, I'm wrong. I apologize. Now where did I get those speed figures from? No matter, at least I got the speed of Sea Sparrow correct.

   

don't degrad to the guy's level man. just drop it and don't feed his fire. I'm sure he'll say the wrong thing to the wrong person someday.

   

Yeah, true. Had to cool the head for a bit. Out of character for me. Attacking the Bonnie is an attack on family. Won't happen again.

   

yeah, besides the hondas and toyotas that are still on the road prove the bonnie's steel was good.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next