Ghost of a flea

Frankly, I'm all for getting some hybrid carriers. Especially if they are something like the Wasp-class LHDs, which can carry a whole Marine battalion and its supplies, then land them via helicopter or amphibious craft.

Right now Canada has zero military strat-lift capability, by either air or sea. We rely on civilian contractors and businesses to move our heavy equipment, whereas other nations have purpose-built military aircraft and ships to do these sorts of jobs. You could hardly ask, for instance, a civilian A300 airliner to do the job of a military C-17A airlifter. Considering how many troops we place abroad and how often, developing strat-lift capability on par with our deployment responsibilities should be a key component of defence renewal.

If remedying our strategic-lift problem is in the CPC platform then that's another excellent reason to vote for them.

I am radically pro carrier. The Wasp class you cite or something along the lines of HMS Ocean would be fine. In some fantasy world we could buy in to the Royal Navy program for a third in the line of carriers they have in the works.

I have to disagree. The Wasp, Ocean and new UK/France carrier programs are all far too expensive for Canada. They require too many men to operate, an important consideration for the small Canadian navy. The Wasp class needs 1000 sailors, the Ocean 255 plus 206 aircrew, and the UK/France CVF 1200.

Instead, I suggest the smaller French Mistral class. It is basically a smaller version of the Wasp, with a large deck for aircraft and a well-deck for landing craft. It needs a crew of 160, 450 troops and a full complement of helicopters and vehicles, for long duration deployments. Such a ship would be ideal for operations such as Haiti in 1994 and 2004, Somalia 1992, East Timor 1999, etc. It can also be used in the pure transport role, where it carries no troops but a large number of vehicles.

It could also be used in a sea control role by embarking Harrier or JSF fighters and Sea King-type ASW helicopters, but it remains to be seen if such aircraft can be afforded.

Such a ship would only need one or two escort ships. Naval threats today are minimal, with terrorist attacks like the one on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 being the most serious. With one Halifax class FFH as an escort, and its own defensive weapons, the ship should be able to protect itself from any threat.

That's my two cents. Bender.

This Mistral plan sounds like an excellent, excellent idea. Can we source something like one of these vessels from anybody else?

Here's a link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mistral.htm

Ships like this should be purchased from the manufacturer but politics will intervene and the government will insist that it be built in Canada.

The Frigate program has demonstrated that this is not the most economical way to do things.

What really should happen is to design it with Canadian requirements in mind, then have it built in the US with major subcontracting done in Canada - in effect, the best of both worlds.

Now, about the airlifting capability. The C-17 is the only real choice. Ex-Soviet equipment isn't reliable, the Airbus A400M is still on the drawing board, and the C-130J is too small. I would recommend 4 C-17s, 24 C-130Js, 8 KC-767s for inflight refuelling and long-range personnel transport, and 12 C-27 Spartans for long range search and rescue. It will be expensive, but would serve the Air Force well for the long-term future.

The C-27J Spartan is a twin-engined cargo aircraft built by Lockheed-Martin. Here's a link about it: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-cc115-2.htm

Air combat capabilities should be scaled back to around 80 aircraft, down from the 120+ CF-18s they have now. Keep one squadron of 18 aircraft available for international deployment while keeping the rest at home for air defence (no more 9-11s), and training.

The Army, I believe, needs to discard its heavy equipment and concentrate on light air-mobile forces. Discard the Leopard tanks, M109 Howitzers and the M113 armored vehicles, but keep the LAVs in limited numbers for reconaissance. Keep the whole range of infantry weapons, including anti-armor weapons. Air Defence vehicles like the ADATS can be discarded as not one Canadian soldier has died from enemy air attack since Korea (the friendly fire bombing in Afghanistan doesn't count). For mobility, the Army should acquire Black Hawk and Chinook helicopters, like the US Army. They proved so important in Afghanistan for operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Apache attack helicopters should also be acquired. This will be logistically difficult but the advantages of rapid mobility and firepower more than compensate. They can also be loaded on to one of the Mistral-type ships for deployment by sea.

Well those are some more thoughts.

Bender.

Supplement:

My crew figures for the Mistral are in dispute between two websites.

GlobalSecurity says 160, but a French site says 270. For a ship of this size, I think that the higher figure is more realistic.

Here's the other link: http://frenchnavy.free.fr/ships/lhd/ntcd.htm

Still, it's low enough so that the small Canadian Navy can operate them. The aging destroyers may have to go, but that's a sacrifice worth making.

So, here's my conclusion. 2 Mistral-type ships operating as capital ships (only one of which would be in service at any one time), with 12 Halifax class frigates as escorts, 4 Upholder class subs for some purpose, and a couple of supply ships.

An Air Force of 80 fighters of the F-18 type, a strong airlift force of 4 C-17s, 24 C-130J, and 8 KC-767 tankers, which can provide mobile air power around the world.

The regular, standing Army should consist of 2 infantry brigade headquarters, 7 light infantry battalions, including 1 airborne battalion group, 2 armor battalions providing Coyote vehicles for reconaissance and rapid firepower, 2 field artillery battalions with 18 155mm guns each, 2 engineer battalions, 2 logistics battalions, and 2 helicopter battalions mixing lift and attack helicopters.

This would allow rapid and sustained deployment of sea, air and land power overseas. Yes it will be expensive, but it will be necessary if Canada wants to commit military forces to solve world problems. The alternative should be to disband the military altogether.

Strangely, the liberal critics seem to think neglect is the best way - well, it works for medicare and government services, why not apply it to everything else!