[Jabberwalker]

$1:

A single carrier is a showpiece, and a very expensive one.

The problem with carriers is that you need three (the barest minimum, two)or none at all. When one is at "readiness" at sea, another one is working upand a third is in refit and this rotation continues fairy constantlty. I suspect that you may be able to make a two carrier navy work, but they would be hard pressed all of the time. One carrier, alone, is one hand clapping.

[llama66]

I was a fan of Canada obtaining the Invincible Class CVNs, but after the whole debacle with the Upholders, I figure the Aircraft Carrier would explode the first time they were to try to launch an aircraft.

[Jabberwalker]

llama66 llama66:

I was a fan of Canada obtaining the Invincible Class CVNs, but after the whole debacle with the Upholders, I figure the Aircraft Carrier would explode the first time they were to try to launch an aircraft.

The Sea Harriers are getting kind of geriatric. They have similar performance specs. to those McDonnel Banshees on the previous page.

Anyway, there is an old tradition in the Royal Navy that the elisted men are lower than cow dung and that their accomodations are better in prison than on a British ship. Perhaps, they are better these days, but ...

[saturn_656]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

A single carrier is a showpiece, and a very expensive one.

The problem with carriers is that you need three (the barest minimum, two)or none at all. When one is at "readiness" at sea, another one is working upand a third is in refit and this rotation continues fairy constantlty. I suspect that you may be able to make a two carrier navy work, but they would be hard pressed all of the time. One carrier, alone, is one hand clapping.

The UK planned to always have one available for ops with their two carrier fleet, when they finally finish them. The Aussies could probably do it when they start flying F-35B's off of their two Canberras.

The French still haven't found the time to build a companion for their sole CVN, I imagine the CdG gets ridden pretty hard.

[saturn_656]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

llama66 llama66:

I was a fan of Canada obtaining the Invincible Class CVNs, but after the whole debacle with the Upholders, I figure the Aircraft Carrier would explode the first time they were to try to launch an aircraft.

The Sea Harriers are getting kind of geriatric. They have similar performance specs. to those McDonnel Banshees on the previous page.

Anyway, there is an old tradition in the Royal Navy that the elisted men are lower than cow dung and that their accomodations are better in prison than on a British ship. Perhaps, they are better these days, but ...

The Sea Harriers, despite being subsonic, had an impressive weapons fit. I'd like to see the Banshee fire an AMRAAM.

[llama66]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

llama66 llama66:

I was a fan of Canada obtaining the Invincible Class CVNs, but after the whole debacle with the Upholders, I figure the Aircraft Carrier would explode the first time they were to try to launch an aircraft.

The Sea Harriers are getting kind of geriatric. They have similar performance specs. to those McDonnel Banshees on the previous page.

Anyway, there is an old tradition in the Royal Navy that the elisted men are lower than cow dung and that their accomodations are better in prison than on a British ship. Perhaps, they are better these days, but ...

Canada is experts at 'flying' and maintaining geriatric aircraft. This sounds perfect!

[Gunnair]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Korea would be the last time. As far as non allied subs? I wouldn't answer that if I could. What a fellow you are. Canadian naval aviation?

RCN is power projection. Right now, we project power in the Middle East.

Xort Xort:

If the RCN had more ships, equipment and manpower would the RCN have been in some more fights in your opinion?

Or to put it another way has the lack of combat been because the navy wasn't properly equiped for it so they avoided it?

The lack of combat is due to the fact that there is no navy out there that can stand up to NATO. Iraq, Iran, North Korea....none have a navy capable of lasting for more than a few minutes with the west. Canada, which does not act unilaterally, works with the US and NATO - no one will take them on.

To look at it in another way, a Taliban solider can hold his own with an RCR Cpl for a while. The Iranian Jamaran wouldn't last all that long against the USS John Paul jones.

Xort Xort:

I'm sure the RCN has the ability to use rotory wing aviation; I've been lead to believe that the most effective ASW is done with choppers.

But in a pinch you could support a land unit close to a coast with something flying off the back deck of one of our ships right? In theory RCN ships could do something to support land operations or maybe provide some SAM coverage for our air force leaving a hostile area?

Sea Kings generally need support, not providing support. SAM coverage, of course. DDHs have a long range SAM capability.
~

Xort Xort:

As for power projection, who are are we projecting power to? Is the RCN hunting down pirates 24/7? Or are they projecting power on Iran or maybe Syria?

Did the RCN do any power projection into Libya? IIRC the airforce was active out of Italy.

When on anti-pirate ops, yes, it's 24/7. HMCS Vancouver carried out ops in Libya working in littoral waters blockading the coast.

Xort Xort:

Is the RCN going to tell China they can't lay claim to all of the China Sea (name not withstanding). Is the RCN going to help Japan protect it's islands from Chinese agression?

Would the RCN move to help protect South Korea and or engage shore targets in North Korea?

Would the RCN do any of those task if we spent more money on then? Or is our ability to project force better served with aircraft? And rather than tasking our navy with coast guard duities to try and justify their cost we should take a realistic look at just what we need as a nation and what is cost effective.

No, the RCN doesn't tell China anything - the government does. What kind of a question is that anyway? Would the CA or RCAF do either of those either? No.

If the government deploys the RCN to protect SK, then of course.

For a better understanding of how navies can be employed in peacetime, read a book or two on the Royal Navy. They used their ships for quite a wide variety of purposes. Now, with our very purpose built warships, it's not quite the same I grant you, but when one is trying to project power in another country, there ain't nothing better than a warship. A little more impressive than a tank, a soldier, and a jet fighter.

By the way, have you ever been on a warship?

[Jabberwalker]

By the way, have you ever been on a warship?

Do Stokers count?

[bootlegga]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'd dispute that statement - Thailand is not a 'serious' navy and Brazil is hardly much better. Russia's single carrier spends most of its time in port because of technical and financial problems. Allied navies like Spain and Italy almost never deploy them very far from their coasts, so I'd question how serious they are too. Even China's carrier is questionable IMHO.

It ought to tell us something when a power like Russia only has one carrier, and even that is not seriously used. A single carrier is a showpiece, and a very expensive one.

Canada, even in its WWII heyday when it had one of the largest navies in the world, was a small ship navy - destroyers and corvettes mostly. IMO there is no reason for us to have big ships, but we should have plenty of small ones for coastal and arctic operations, and occasional support deployment with allied navies. Let's put our eggs in useful baskets.

Yep, we should stick with what we are experts are at.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'd dispute that statement - Thailand is not a 'serious' navy and Brazil is hardly much better. Russia's single carrier spends most of its time in port because of technical and financial problems. Allied navies like Spain and Italy almost never deploy them very far from their coasts, so I'd question how serious they are too. Even China's carrier is questionable IMHO.

The reality is only four navies have serious carriers - France, India, the UK and the USA (although China seems to be working towards being included in this group).

Thailands carrier is more of a through deck OPV.

I also wouldn't dig at Brazil, they've maintained carrier ops for a continuous 55+ years. Better than we were able to manage.

Also at the moment, the UK doesn't have anything that resembles a serious carrier.

You said 'the serious navies had carriers' - I pointed out that that wasn't the case at all.

There are several countries that have them for symbolic reasons, not because they actually need or use them as they were intended. Brazil may have operated a carrier for five decades or so, but have they ever used it? No.

And neither did we when we had a carrier. Nor did the Aussies, nor has anyone but the US and the UK since WW2.

Sure we could have retained a carrier and been a highly redundant capability in NATO, but why bother when the USN, RN and French had a half dozen carriers in the Atlantic and Italy and Spain and the USN had another half dozen in the Mediterrean?

It simply never made sense - it was just a show of us wanting to play with the big boys. That's the biggest problem at DNDHQ - they seem to think we should always be able to play with the big boys - when we aren't even a mid-sized one.

We should stick to what we know and understand and avoid those tasks we simply don't need on a day-to-day basis.

P.S. The UK carrier situation is a temporary issue - once the QE2s are commissioned, they will have more carrier capability than anyone except the USN.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

P.S. The UK carrier situation is a temporary issue - once the QE2s are commissioned, they will have more carrier capability than anyone except the USN.

They are dragging their feet a bit on those and they also contemplating whether to combine their carrier efforts with the French. (If they do so, it will be the birth of an EU Navy!) They also have misgivings about the F-35, I understand.

[Jabberwalker]

Now, with our very purpose built warships, it's not quite the same I grant you, but when one is trying to project power in another country, there ain't nothing better than a warship.

Actually, our City Class Frigates are the multipurpose cruisers that were first envisioned for the RCN , back in Laurier's time. In fact, the current navy is almost exactly what was envisaged 100 years ago.

[Nuggie77]

P.S. The UK carrier situation is a temporary issue - once the QE2s are commissioned, they will have more carrier capability than anyone except the USN.[/quote]

They won't have any capability until the get an aircraft capable of flying off the QE2.

[Jonny_C]

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

P.S. The UK carrier situation is a temporary issue - once the QE2s are commissioned, they will have more carrier capability than anyone except the USN.

They won't have any capability until the get an aircraft capable of flying off the QE2.

They could get that as soon as the QE2's are ready if they were to buy French Rafale's.

[saturn_656]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

P.S. The UK carrier situation is a temporary issue - once the QE2s are commissioned, they will have more carrier capability than anyone except the USN.

They won't have any capability until the get an aircraft capable of flying off the QE2.

They could get that as soon as the QE2's are ready if they were to buy French Rafale's.

Unless the French have developed a STOVL version of the Rafale, I don't think so.

Brits ran the numbers and building them for CATOBAR would be pricier.