DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 7 hours ago, ?Impact said: It certainly feels that way for any public service job, we have the right wing continually calling them a liability and not contributing. Of course, I said no such thing but you're free to pretend I stated it. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 7 hours ago, Wilber said: So we spend a couple of billion on a light carrier An off the shelf design, like the Canberras or the HMS Ocean cost about the same as a modern frigate or destroyer......HMS Ocean cost less than a type 23 frigate to build and operate. 7 hours ago, Wilber said: couple of billion or so for a few F-35B's Which could come out of the Hornet replacements 7 hours ago, Wilber said: helicopters to operate from it We have Helicopters to operate from it, both naval and tactical 7 hours ago, Wilber said: You need AEW helicopters to provide early warning of incoming aircraft. Lack of AEW capability is what cost the British so dearly in the Falklands. For an LHD we don't........The USN/USMC don't operate AEW helicopters from their LHDs, and they operate independently.....with that said, next generation AEW platforms will likely be unmanned and extremely long ranged...... 7 hours ago, Wilber said: Then you need surface ships with anti aircraft and anti missile capability to protect if from aircraft and surface launched missiles, We need those anyways, and are apart of the RCN's new surface combatant program. 7 hours ago, Wilber said: plus effective attack subs to protect it from other subs. Not in all cases........that depends on the threat level....in a case with a serious sub threat, a Canadian LHD would be no more or less exposed then our current fleet.....the one difference, said LHD could double (or triple) a Canadian task force's ability to combat a sub threat. 7 hours ago, Wilber said: To that, add supply ships so all those ships can operate away from home for long periods. All so you can feel like one of the big boys. We need those, and are building those, anyways....... 7 hours ago, Wilber said: Not having an aircraft carrier doesn't mean we are neglecting our military, that is another issue. Sure it does, it limits our current navy greatly. 7 hours ago, Wilber said: If we want a navy with a world presence, we would be better off having multi purpose ships that can operate helicopters and land troops and equipment. Leave air superiority to those best equipped to provide it. The problem with that argument is that it can be (and has been) applied by politicians as justification for cutting capabilities.........and is being used by this Government and its handling of our current Hornet replacements. Quote
?Impact Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said: Wrong Wow, asking a question and I get a 'wrong' declaration from Derek. I guess I will run along now. While US defence companies regularly challenge the pentagon on decisions, it is rare they challenge overseas government. It seems as if in this case Boeing is going to challenge Denmark because that short term decision process you so admire was flawed. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 7 hours ago, ?Impact said: Aircraft carriers do not operate independently, they have a fleet surrounding them. Not in all cases, again it depends on the threat level........for example, the British and even the Americans on post refit cruises, carrier deck qualifications, rebasing/relocation, training, disaster response etc and a whole host of other deployments will operate independently or with but one escort to act as a plane guard........... Regardless, our navy, since the 50s has operated under its own task force doctrine for higher risk deployments (1 AOR, 1 Destroyer and 2-3 frigates) and training......in other words, all that is missing is the high value fleet unit like a carrier or a large Amphib... 7 hours ago, ?Impact said: The US today calls these carrier strike groups, composed of the aircraft carrier itself and a guided missile cruiser, 2 or more light airborne multi-purpose system (LAMP) warships, and several destroyers and/or frigates. You're quoting (very) dated sources..........Carriers operate with either or cruisers and destroyers.......outside of Allies (including Canada), the Americans haven't operated frigates (which they no longer have) in Carrier Battle Groups for a very long time.......And there is no such thing as a "LAMP warships".....LAMPS is but a tether operating system and all USN escorts that operate with a helicopter use it.... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 11 minutes ago, ?Impact said: It seems as if in this case Boeing is going to challenge Denmark because that short term decision process you so admire was flawed. Says Boeing's sales department.........in reality, Boeing (with their nose out of joint since they lost to the X-35) have been able to leverage previous economy of scales pricing with the DoD, contrasted with LRIP prices of the F-35......now that the F-35 full rate production pricing is becoming apparent (as is the slowing production rate of the Superbug) the two aircraft prices are going in different directions...... the 15% FMS premium on Super Hornets (and not found on the F-35), alongside the rust coating, found within the fine print hasn't helped them on the export market either.........The Super Hornet is a big, expensive, lumbering beast (likely bested by the latest Russian and Chinese aircraft) trying to be young at heart......and Boeing's sales reflect that. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said: Says Boeing's sales department..... Yes...as this is exactly what one would expect for build rates that have slowed to a crawl and supply chains that are drying up. If Canada follows through on this sole source procurement of 18 Super Hornets, they will likely be the most expensive ever (dollar adjusted for inflation and loonie at a low). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said: An off the shelf design, like the Canberras or the HMS Ocean cost about the same as a modern frigate or destroyer......HMS Ocean cost less than a type 23 frigate to build and operate. Australia has abandoned the idea of operating F-35's from its Canberra class ships or building other fixed wing carrying ships. Too expensive. This is a country that spent over 75% more on defence than Canada in 2015 and almost double its % GDP. Quote We have Helicopters to operate from it, both naval and tactical Really. Our frigates still don't have their new helicopters yet. Quote Sure it does, it limits our current navy greatly. How? W hen are we ever going to use fixed wing carriers independently. We never have before. The closest either of our carriers came to a war zone was when the Bonnie was part of the Cuban Missile blockade. We didn't even deploy the Maggie to Korea. Other than that they were only used as transports for peace keeping operations. Quote The problem with that argument is that it can be (and has been) applied by politicians as justification for cutting capabilities.........and is being used by this Government and its handling of our current Hornet replacements. Nonsense. Edited November 26, 2016 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Wilber said: Australia has abandoned the idea of operating F-35's from its Canberra class ships or building No they haven't........I cited their most recent White Paper for you. 25 minutes ago, Wilber said: Really. Our frigates still don't have their new helicopters yet. Quote Huh? The Cyclones have already started entering service, likewise I know that at least two of the frigates (Montreal and Calgary) have made the transition from Sea King to Cyclone.......the complete transition, as is the delivery of the final mission suite, is still years away, but that wouldn't be a deal breaker by any stretch. 25 minutes ago, Wilber said: How? W hen are we ever going to use fixed wing carriers independently. We never have before. When has Canada last went to war, with any service, independently? 25 minutes ago, Wilber said: Nonsense The current Prime Minister has clearly stated Canada has no need of a "stealth aircraft"......the previous Liberal government declared the "tank" a "cold war dinosaur" and no longer needed........what about does Cadillac 'elicopters? Edited November 26, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 And to follow up on the "Hornet capability gap": Quote Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood says all 77 of Canada's CF-18 fighter jets will be able to fly until 2025, providing "sufficient capability" until a replacement for the aging planes can be purchased through a competition. Hood also says the U.S. military and other allies are working on upgrades to the CF-18s that would reduce the risks and costs involved should they be needed for an even longer period of time. The comments are contained in documents filed this week with the House of Commons defence committee as the Liberal government prepares to negotiate the purchase of the 18 new aircraft. The Liberal response: Quote Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office says Hood's comments don't address a "capability gap" that has been created from many CF-18s being out of service on any given day because of maintenance issues. "Keeping old planes flying longer won't address the capability gap," spokeswoman Jordan Owens said in an email. "With the current availability rate what it is, even if the 77 airplanes could fly forever, there still wouldn't be enough of them to simultaneously meet our Norad and NATO commitments." What "capability gap"? The head of the RCAF says we're good to go out to at least 2025, more then enough time to run a competition and transition to a new type........Why is it we've only ever heard of this "capability gap" since the Liberals came to power? And why have they placed a lifetime gag order on all staff working on the program? Open and transparent indeed Quote
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) Let's hope we never actually have to 'transition-to' WAR at a moment's notice... Edited November 26, 2016 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 19 hours ago, ?Impact said: Without Canada's leadership in non-proliferation, I think the chances are fairly good we wouldn't be having this conversation. LOL! Our leadership in non-proliferation! LOL! You mean because we were too cheap to pay for expensive nukes and since then have been posturing about our superior morality? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 18 hours ago, ?Impact said: You couldn't be further from the mark. First we are talking about non-proliferation so the major powers are not the concern here. Second, leading by example is the best form of leading - period. A statement with no basis of support. Pure fantasy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 16 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said: As cited, the recent Danish program found the F-35 both more capable and cheaper then the Super Hornet. Stop introducing evidence! The SJWs of the Left have it set in stone that the F35 is a pricey piece of junk that every learned psychology professor has already dismissed as a waste of money. No one cares about what the actual air force people think. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 16 minutes ago, Argus said: Stop introducing evidence! The SJWs of the Left have it set in stone that the F35 is a pricey piece of junk that every learned psychology professor has already dismissed as a waste of money. No one cares about what the actual air force people think. I beg to differ.........if that were the case, the Trudeau Liberals wouldn't have forced staff into a lifetime gag-order over the file. Quote
Wilber Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said: No they haven't........I cited their most recent White Paper for you. Must have missed it. Didn't see any mention of carriers or F-35B's in that White Paper. Quote Huh? The Cyclones have already started entering service, likewise I know that at least two of the frigates (Montreal and Calgary) have made the transition from Sea King to Cyclone.......the complete transition, as is the delivery of the final mission suite, is still years away, but that wouldn't be a deal breaker by any stretch. Finally. Two whole ships with a helicopter Quote When has Canada last went to war, with any service, independently? Our carriers never went to war period. As a matter of fact, they were most useful doing the job that ships like Canberra and Ocean presently do. Quote The current Prime Minister has clearly stated Canada has no need of a "stealth aircraft"......the previous Liberal government declared the "tank" a "cold war dinosaur" and no longer needed........what about does Cadillac 'elicopters? What does that have to do with the wisdom of building and operating carriers? No doubt we have to put more resources into the military, especially since the US may no longer be as reliable an ally as we are used to. However that doesn't mean an aircraft carrier is best way of doing it? When it comes to building, equipping and operating, they are the most expensive type of warship going. A class of warship, Canada has never done very much with even when we had them. Better to spend more money on ships that can operate in the Arctic. Edited November 26, 2016 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
?Impact Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 18 minutes ago, Wilber said: What does that have to do with the wisdom of building and operating carriers? Not to derail this too much more, but as the topic of carriers seems to be occurring frequently here I though it might be worth interjecting that even the US is beginning to debate if they are the most effective use of resources. While there is a new generation of carriers (Gearld R. Ford) being built now, they may never deploy as many as the current Nimitz class. It may also be the last class of carriers the US ever builds. Here is an interesting debate on the subject. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 19 minutes ago, Wilber said: Must have missed it. Didn't see any mention of carriers or F-35B's in that White Paper. Quote As cited over the years, in countless threads, it is but one of several options for the Australian requirement for "deep strike"......in the most recent White Paper, as cited, no decision will be made until the F-35A begin to enter service in the early 2020s. 23 minutes ago, Wilber said: Finally. Two whole ships with a helicopter All of them have helicopters, be they Sea Kings or Cyclones........clearly you're ignorant to the balancing act that is transition well meeting operational need. 25 minutes ago, Wilber said: Our carriers never went to war period. As a matter of fact, they were most useful doing the job that ships like Canberra and Ocean presently do. I never said that they did......what's your point? I don't know how you base their "most useful job".......are you suggesting NATO didn't value their operational footprint through the Cold War? If that were the case, prior to Bonnie's last refit, I'd fail to understand why both the Americans and British offered larger carriers for next to nothing........it would seem to of our larger Allies thought them useful. 29 minutes ago, Wilber said: What does that have to do with the wisdom of building and operating carriers? Reread the chain of posts.......you made the point they were a waste of money, I stated that is the argument of politicians used to justify defense cuts and then provided examples of such. 31 minutes ago, Wilber said: No doubt we have to put more resources into the military, especially since the US may no longer be as reliable an ally as we are used to. However that doesn't mean an aircraft carrier is best way of doing it? When it comes to building, equipping and operating, they are the most expensive type of warship going. A class of warship, Canada has never done very much with even when we had them. Better to spend more money on ships that can operate in the Arctic. No they're not, as pointed out.......HMS Ocean cost as much as frigate to build and operate......newer designs like the Canberra or Mistral as much as modern destroyers, and in part thanks to automation, don't cost significantly more than a modern freighter to operate. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 10 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Not to derail this too much more, but as the topic of carriers seems to be occurring frequently here I though it might be worth interjecting that even the US is beginning to debate if they are the most effective use of resources. While there is a new generation of carriers (Gearld R. Ford) being built now, they may never deploy as many as the current Nimitz class. It may also be the last class of carriers the US ever builds. Here is an interesting debate on the subject. No, some people are......the USN isn't......the debate is one that is no different then what some fringes have been promoting since the first A-Bomb exploded.......Likewise, planned production of the Ford class was slowed, and carrier numbers threatened to be reduced, under sequestration.....that threat was put to rest once funding was allocated to refuel USS George Washington, which was to start this Fall, but has been put back because she was sent to Haiti (Without an escort strike group ) to provide humanitarian aide after the hurricane. Quote
Wilber Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: As cited over the years, in countless threads, it is but one of several options for the Australian requirement for "deep strike"......in the most recent White Paper, as cited, no decision will be made until the F-35A begin to enter service in the early 2020s. Where? Page and reference number please. Quote All of them have helicopters, be they Sea Kings or Cyclones........clearly you're ignorant to the balancing act that is transition well meeting operational need. So we are going to take the helicopters off of the frigates and put them on a carrier? Quote I never said that they did......what's your point? I don't know how you base their "most useful job".......are you suggesting NATO didn't value their operational footprint through the Cold War? If that were the case, prior to Bonnie's last refit, I'd fail to understand why both the Americans and British offered larger carriers for next to nothing........it would seem to of our larger Allies thought them useful. If they did, it was because they didn't want them. So not that useful. Considering we were operating Banshees and Trackers into the seventies, we didn't think they were that useful either. Correction: The Banshees were retired in 1962, the Bonnie didn't have any jets for the remainder of its service. It was an ASW ship only. Quote Reread the chain of posts.......you made the point they were a waste of money, I stated that is the argument of politicians used to justify defense cuts and then provided examples of such. They can justify anything to justify anything. Just like us. Quote No they're not, as pointed out.......HMS Ocean cost as much as frigate to build and operate......newer designs like the Canberra or Mistral as much as modern destroyers, and in part thanks to automation, don't cost significantly more than a modern freighter to operate. The greatest cost of a carrier is buying and operating its aircraft, not the ship itself. Edited November 26, 2016 by Wilber Correction Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, Wilber said: Where? Page and reference number please. Chapter Four: The Future Australian Defense Force 6 minutes ago, Wilber said: So we are going to take the helicopters off of the frigates and put them on a carrier? If a requirement warranted it, sure, why not? 7 minutes ago, Wilber said: If they did, it was because they didn't want them. So not that useful. Considering we were operating Banshees and Trackers into the seventies, we didn't think they were that useful either. Not a case of "want", but money.......they offered both us and the Australians larger carriers......More so in the case of the Americans, not to be nice guys, but equip Allies so they don't have to do all the heavy lifting. 9 minutes ago, Wilber said: The greatest cost of a carrier is buying and operating its aircraft, not the ship itself. That's dependent upon the vessel, none the less, as already noted, we already have aircraft that could operate off a Canberra like LHD or other light carrier types......buying more and/or different types would be an improvement upon capabilities, but with what we already have bought and paid for, such a vessel would without a doubt be a great expansion of capabilities for the Forces, and in turn, an important tool in the quiver of the GoC .............Just like a modern fighter force Quote
Wilber Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 Just now, Derek 2.0 said: Chapter Four: The Future Australian Defense Forc Page and reference please. Quote If a requirement warranted it, sure, why not? So then we have a bunch of frigates with no helicopters. Quote Not a case of "want", but money.......they offered both us and the Australians larger carriers......More so in the case of the Americans, not to be nice guys, but equip Allies so they don't have to do all the heavy lifting. Really, why was there no plan to replace the Banshees by the Conservative govt in power for the five years before they were retired? Quote That's dependent upon the vessel, none the less, as already noted, we already have aircraft that could operate off a Canberra like LHD or other light carrier types......buying more and/or different types would be an improvement upon capabilities, but with what we already have bought and paid for, such a vessel would without a doubt be a great expansion of capabilities for the Forces, and in turn, an important tool in the quiver of the GoC What aircraft, helicopters robbed from frigates? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 1 minute ago, Wilber said: Page and reference please. Better yet (4.42): Quote Options to replace the Super Hornets in the late 2020s will be considered in the early 2020s in light of developments in technology and the strategic environment and will be informed by our experience in operating the Joint Strike Fighters. The Government will also acquire new air combat training systems as part of the Key Enablers capability stream. Proving your claim that they have decided against it incorrect. 3 minutes ago, Wilber said: So then we have a bunch of frigates with no helicopters. We have more helicopters then frigates......again, if it warranted it, why not? 4 minutes ago, Wilber said: Really, why was there no plan to replace the Banshees by the Conservative govt in power for the five years before they were retired? There was, both the RCN and RCAF in the early 60s looked at purchasing Skyhawks, and then again in the later 60s, in which the Liberals went with the CF-5. 6 minutes ago, Wilber said: What aircraft, helicopters robbed from frigates? Again, we have more Sea Kings/Cyclones then frigates.....in addition squadrons of Griffons and Chinooks that could operate from an LHD like vessel.....just as current operators of LHDs and similar aircraft do. Quote
Wilber Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said: Better yet (4.42): Proving your claim that they have decided against it incorrect. Excuse Me. Where do you get, we are considering carriers and F-35B's out of this? Quote 4 42 The ADF will be equipped with a potent and technologically advanced strike and air combat capability over the next decade, building on the current fleet of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets, six E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft and five KC-30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft In addition to 12 EA-18G Growler Electronic Attack aircraft which will enter service from 2018, 72 F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters will begin to enter operational service from 2020 to replace the Classic Hornets Options to replace the Super Hornets in the late 2020s will be considered in the early 2020s in light of developments in technology and the strategic environment and will be informed by our experience in operating the Joint Strike Fighters The Government will also acquire new air combat training systems as part of the Key Enablers capability stream Quote We have more helicopters then frigates......again, if it warranted it, why not? As long as they are 50 year old Sea Kings. Quote There was, both the RCN and RCAF in the early 60s looked at purchasing Skyhawks, and then again in the later 60s, in which the Liberals went with the CF-5. Looked at but didn't. Both were very limited aircraft and both a mistake. Quote Again, we have more Sea Kings/Cyclones then frigates.....in addition squadrons of Griffons and Chinooks that could operate from an LHD like vessel.....just as current operators of LHDs and similar aircraft do. Already said LHD ships were the way to go but not with VSTOL jet aircraft. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
?Impact Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 3 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said: No, some people are......the USN isn't......the debate is one that is no different then what some fringes have been promoting since the first A-Bomb exploded.......Likewise, planned production of the Ford class was slowed, and carrier numbers threatened to be reduced, under sequestration.....that threat was put to rest once funding was allocated to refuel USS George Washington Did you watch the debate? Very refreshing after the recent Presidential clown show. I don't think the view that strategic resources would be better spent on other naval vessels is a fringe viewpoint. When you have to park a $15 billion carrier over 1000 miles offshore, and have aircraft that can only operate in a less than 500 mile radius it seems like a massive waste of resources. The US doesn't want to put these expensive carriers into war zones, and endanger the lives of 5,200 sailors. Yes there are anti-missile defences, but if it can only withstand three and half minutes then it is not much use. From what I read about funding for the Ford class, all that was given was $2.5 billion to start work on the second ship. I wouldn't call that funding restored to the program, it will take another $12.5 billion to complete that second ship. One of the audience questions in the debate was on humanitarian use of aircraft carriers, watch and hear the response. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Wilber said: Where do you get, we are considering carriers and F-35B's out of this? Out of previous discussed threads, in which their various "options" for deep strike were discussed, of which F-35Bs/LHDs were included.....The RAN and RAAF have already priced out the needed modifications, all easily done during a refit, to allow for sustained F-35B operations aboard the Canberras 1 hour ago, Wilber said: As long as they are 50 year old Sea Kings. Huh? We've purchased 28 Cyclones...... 1 hour ago, Wilber said: Looked at but didn't. Both were very limited aircraft and both a mistake. Quote Again, that goes back to political will.....as to their limitations, today, sure, they're very limited......but 50 years ago they were still cutting edge attack aircraft, with various wars proving their worth versus the record of the Freedom Fighter and even the Starfighter............ Reverting back to my point, the purchase of the Freedom Fighter was a poor, politically based choice (under a Liberal government), just as this proposed purchase of the Super Hornets would be.......Liberal government putting their political fortunes before the needs of the Canadian Forces....... 1 hour ago, Wilber said: Already said LHD ships were the way to go but not with VSTOL jet aircraft. You have? You've been arguing the point for pages.......none the less a STOVL aircraft like the F-35B (and LHDs) would give us a huge increase in capability, for very little initial investment and continued operating costs, much of which could be accounted for within the already existing budget framework.......replace several of the planned surface combatants (well deleting the requirement for flag facilities on the remainder) and purchase several off the shelf LHDs.....likewise with fighters, purchase fewer conventional types, opting for 12-18 F-35Bs for expeditionary deployments with NATO, the UN and other overseas deployments............ It all boils down to political will......something this government is lacking, made evident by its planned secretive purchase of the Super Hornet.....something the head of the RCAF says we don't currently need. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.