Canadian Amphibious Plan

[pepsi]

The Canadian navy is drafting a plan to acquire two large amphibious assault ships capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks across the seas.
The idea, which merited a passing reference in last spring’s defence policy statement, is expected to go before the federal Treasury Board next year for consideration, said the director of the navy’s maritime requirements.
“We’re looking at being more engaged on a global scale,” said Capt. Peter Ellis.
“I think it’s a critical requirement, especially if we’re going to conduct operations at short notice.”
The acquisition of the ships, that can resemble small aircraft carriers, are in addition to the navy’s $2.1-billion project to build three regular supply ships.
As yet, the navy has not come up with a price tag for the landing ships.
Ellis said the amphibious ships and supply boats serve different purposes.
The transports, complete with a detachment of attack helicopters and landing craft, give the army an ability to land on an empty or partially defended beach anywhere in the world.
Regular supply ships require a port to load and unload.
Defence analyst David Rudd said the navy needs to better explain their planned purchase.
“If want to go in this direction and spend quite a bit of money — you would think that the capability would be quite literally leaping off the pages of their defence policy statement,” said Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.
Adding to Rudd’s concern, the federal Conservatives supported the concept of the landing ships in the last election. But Prime Minister Paul Martin dismissed the idea during the televised debate, saying Canadians had a choice between a party that supported health care and one that wanted to buy aircraft carriers.
In April, Ottawa laid out a sweeping new plan for its Armed Forces, promising a better-equipped, more efficient and more effective military at home and abroad — all within five years.
The document, which promises to effectively double Canada’s overseas capability, includes the purchase of new ships, new aircraft and new vehicles.
But even if the project passes the political hurdles, Rudd says he sees potential problems in selecting a design.
The U.S. is constructing a new class of amphibious assault ships called the San Antonio class, but may not commission all of them. Talk within the Defence industry is that two of the yet-to-be constructed ships could be sold to another country, possibly Canada.
Such a move would be another strike to Canada’s struggling shipbuilding industry.
In Rudd’s view it would also be a mistake given the size and complexity of the ships, which require a crew of 300 or more to sail.
Ellis said the navy has not settled on any specific design at this time.

From : http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/459363.html

What are peoples thoughts on this, I was wondering what Canada's amphibous requirements are, over other requirements, i can't think of many areas in their immediate region that would need an amphibious capability of that scale

Although, that said, i can see how the San Antonio class ship that is mentioned in the article would be a better choice than some kind of LHD, as i guess it could fill slightly more roles if needed (although im guessing)

So what are everyones thoughts on that subject, would it be better for Canada to focus on another area of the Navy or Airforce/Army first, or is this decision a good one?

[knightrider4]

Interesting. We in Australia are purchasing two LHD ships either a french mistral class or the Spanish strategic projection ship around 27k in tonnage. I think if your going to have these vessels and they are highly capable systems then what you need are quality air warfare system on your escorts otherwise you may be inviting disaster, hence we ordered three Aegis equipped destroyers of around 7k tonnage.

[slapshot]

First Canada does not have the means of power projection so why would we even concider this type of purchase. First we would be very hard pressed to even get a dozen of our Leapard 1 MBT to a port let alone put them on a beach and support operations when they got there as our capibility to transport and supply these tanks is very limited even in Canada. Canada had to rely on the United States MAC command to get our lightly equiped troops to Afiganistan as our own heavy air lift capibility is nonexsistent and medium airlift is very limited. If Canada did buy this type of ship how could we supply our troops on a beach in a operation with out a complete upgrade of our air, sea and land lift capibilities and also a complete redistibution of our current basing of the leapard's and ground troops. If we had the proper equipment and bases for such operations in the first place then buying this type of ship would make sence but Canada does not. Another point is Canada wants to replace its ageing fleet of MBT's with Air portable tank destroyers so why buy ships that can transport MBT's when we won't have any in 5 years? Canada needs to be realistic in what we really need in arms purchases and two LHD's is not realistic, maybe a dozen C-17s or IL76's would be a little better choice if we wish to be engaged on a global scale.

[alexsa]

Australias two LPHs have proved to be extreamly useful platforms (after a bit of a saga getting them modified for service) in a variety of roles. The San Antonio has a similar function (albeit being a much larger and capable platform) and so maybe this sort of vessel will provide a useful capability boost to Canada. :canada

The simularities between the RAN and the Canadian Navy are pretty close in retorspect noting the RAN lost its dedicated AAW destroyers soon after the LPHs became fully operational. That situation (along with some truely effective LHA/Ds) will hopefully be resolved soon.:D

[JAF]

There is no doubt that the plan is ambitious. However I would argue necessary for the types of missions Canada has and is going to participate in. Peacekeeping and Humanitarian relief will dominate Canada operations in the future. These vessels offer you a capability and flexibility to perform both roles, simultaneously if necessary. In choosing which design I would go with the Spanish LPD which is similar to the Dutch LPD. They have a mission crew of well under 200 (between 124 and 175 depending on the configuration). The Castilla has two command centres, one for amphibious ops and the other for task force command. They are all equipped with full hospitals. Additionally there can me at least superficial common hulls between a LPD and an AOR. Since Canada is in the process of replacing her current AOR’s, this possibility of finding a common hull design (obviously with hugely different interiors) should be examined.

Slapshot, you suggest “maybe a dozen C-17s or IL76's would be a little better choice if we wish to be engaged on a global scale.” While I agree that Canada needs these platforms (C-17’s would be my choice), Aircraft can not replace ships in the ability to transport re-enforced battalion sized battle groups around the globe. Especially when a 12 - 18 C-17 is likely all Canada would ever purchase, if any. Our CDS has stressed (in error I believe) that the renting of airlift is the way to go. Until he is persuaded otherwise the purchase of airlift is off the table.

[slapshot]

You have made some intersting points Jaf and I think you are correct that the CAF job will be peace keeping in the future but if it is peace keeping and Humanitarian missions we mostly undertake then these ships are not the right ones for the job. Yes they have a great C&C capability but they are also big targets and as knightrider stated you need quility air defence ships for protection which the Canadian navy alone does not have. Yes we have excellent air defence capabilities on the Halifax class Frigates but they are patrol frigates not air defence warships and as the article that Pepsi posted " The Canadian navy is drafting a plan to acquire two large amphibious assault ships capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks across the seas."

This statment alone tells me the Canadian armed forces do not want a ship of this capibility just for humanitarian and peace keeping missions. They will be for combat operations that our armed forces are ill equiped to undertake. I agree these ship would be a great increase in our capibilities to preform humanitarian missions but heavy long range airlift is a better chioce for this because of the Quick responce time airlift gives you in a disaster that requires humanitarian aid. Don't get me wrong Jaf I would love to see this type of ship in the Canadian navy but it is a premature purchase as we need an across the board increase in capibility such as new heavy/medium lift helicopters, new ships to protect them to make these LHD's really effective in any mission they are called to undertake including combat missions. What the Canadian goverment needs to do is give our armed forces a clear understanding as to what we want our armed forces to do and then we can really know what epuipment we really need to purchase. I just hope the Canadian goverment is not putting the cart before the horse again. C-17's would be my chioce as well :)

[JAF]

The only vessels that can transport “thousands of troops” are LHA’s and LHD’s of the American Wasp and Tarawa class. These vessels are beyond Canada’s financial and manpower abilities by far.

If a government desires to have a “from the sea” assault capability and the current LHD/LHA are beyond your ability to purchase and crew/support, your options are LPD’s type ships.

The current generation of LPD, which are all generally similar: 300-600 troops, 125 – 300 crew and 4-6 x 20 ton helicopters. (I do not consider the San Antonio’s current, they are the lead design for the next generation of LPD)

Any of these vessels would greatly increase Canada’s ability to transport troops, and more importantly equipment around the globe. They would have the additional and practical added capability to assist in Humanitarian and Peace support operations.

Canada will need to replace the Tribal’s with a new generation C4I AAW platform. The purchase of LPD’s would only serve to add to the necessity of doing so.

Slapshot at the risk of sounding repetitive, Aircraft can transport manpower and limited quantities of equipment to an operational area quickly. These forces would need re-supply and additional add on troops in order to maintain a prolonged presence, regardless of why they were there (War, Peace support, Humanitarian). Only ships can carry bulky military equipment in large enough quantities needed to support prolonged operations for
large numbers of troops. To put it bluntly, we do not get involved in short term engagements. The political decision to go usually takes a hek of a lot longer than would the ability of a 20 Kt LPD to circumnavigate the globe. And once we do get involved we are there for a long time. Emergency considerations while a factor do not dictate a large percentage of how and why we get involved globally. So “Quick responses” are good for photo ops but do little in solving the causes that necessitate our intervention in the first place. We need both planes and LPD’s. If I had to choose one, I would go with LPD’s.

Further naval task forces do not require friendly landing strips or adequate shore based support facilities in order to sit off of someone’s coast. For this reason alone they are more flexible if albeit slower than transport aircraft.

[slapshot]

Jaf I believe we are in agreement on mostly ever point you make, we need both aircraft and ships and man power to do any type of mission that the CAF is tasked to undertake. My concern is that if we buy LHD's, LHA's or LPD's that we also improve our capibility across the board to make these ships truly effective and that takes money and vision which the Canadian goverment has shown a great lack of both when it comes to the CAF in the last 25 years. As I said I hope this is not a case of the cart before the horse.

[knightrider4]

This is an interesting thread for sure. I figure both Canada and Australia's defence forces are roughly similar in capability and structure. Personally I dont have a great deal of time for the San Antonio class of vessels, I imagine them to be very much designed for an American doctrine and niche vessels at that. Fine to purchase as backups to the LHD's but not too good as your primary amphibious system. Down where we are its a rather uncertain strategic situation and therefore the ADF is undergoing something of a transformation and one that is long overdue. I think that the Canadian Navy with its rich traditions deserves the very best the goverment can provide its just convincing those who control the purse strings which is the hard part.:mad:

[MikMyk]

San Antonio design isn't very peculiar or specific to the US force structure as many other nations have similar types already in service (Rottedam for example). In fact its general enough in terms of capability to accomidate how well the AU and Canadian military does business in terms of deployment. How do you class them as specialized and niche?

[gf0012-aust]

One of the aussie members on here was associated with the LHA evaluation. He's indicated that the San Anotinio's were knocked out of contention and as being unsuitable for a number of reasons.

Outside of that brief "throw-away" statement, it's inapprop for me to comment further.

[MikMyk]

One of the aussie members on here was associated with the LHA evaluation. He's indicated that the San Anotinio's were knocked out of contention and as being unsuitable for a number of reasons.

Outside of that brief "throw-away" statement, it's inapprop for me to comment further.

Interesting. Thanks for the comment and your credentials :lol3

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting. Thanks for the comment and your credentials :lol3

It's definitely not me. ;) The other bloke is a lurker and doesn't always comment even when he's online. He is however more than well placed to comment in light of what he's done and currently does within the ADF.

Sounds a bit vague, but I'm wary of commenting on other peoples behalf.

I'm more comfortable with subs, electronic warfare, ballistics.... skimmers are "targets" ;)

His prev comment was "Actually, in terms of lift ability and aviation, they are less capable than the SPS. The San Antonio class was examined early on but rejected on capability grounds" (SPS = Strategic Protection Ship) ie:

The Strategic Projection Ship will be a 27,000 ton displacement LPH some 231.4m in length, with a beam of 32m and a draft of 7m. It will have a crew of 243 and will be able to carry up to 35 aircraft including STOVL (Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing) with 170 air and ground crew, a staff of 100 and up to 900 troops. The Strategic Projection Ship will be used for air operations, for amphibious operations, expeditionary and humanitarian missions with an anticipated in-service date of 2007, although it could be put back to the First Quarter of 2008.

Although not a full aircraft carrier it is intended to be an operational replacement for the carrier Principe de Asturias when she is being refitted.

There will be two elevators and landing spots for up to six NH 90 size helicopters while the STOVL aircraft, Matador (Harrier) initially and later 10-12 F-35B, will use a 12 degree 'ski jump'. It will have two podded propulsors to give a maximum speed of more than 21 knots and a range of 9,000 nautical miles. (RINA document)

[MikMyk]

Okay makes sense and think I saw the drawings in another thread. Thank you very much.

Will particular units will be assigned on a semi-permanent basis (specialized training similar to USMC ) or will existing units be operating from the new vessel (consistent to what occurs now)?

[gf0012-aust]

Okay makes sense and think I saw the drawings in another thread. Thank you very much.

Will particular units will be assigned on a semi-permanent basis (specialized training similar to USMC ) or will existing units be operating from the new vessel (consistent to what occurs now)?

Not sure, but to take a really uneducated guess, and using some of the scuttlebutt that has been surfacing from within the ADF I'd say:

1) Old RAN Fleet air arm squadrons would get re-raised if we go to F-35B, but they will be RAAF pilots (as per RN current philosophy)
2) That modelling will closely reflect USMC behaviour as the RAN/RAAF/Army has a close affinity in operating methods and styles with the USMC.

but, at this stage its just all guess work. ;)

[stephen weist]

I think you guys missed the boat on this one. The idea behind this program is not to have the Canadian forces charging off to invade anyone, its to have the capability to move thier own forces to trouble spots without relying on other countries. Canada thru years of defense neglect really doesnt have a credible army and frankly I think they would be hard pressed to handle a domestic uprising(Such as OKA). Land force is down to approx 4,000 troops and of that I think less then 2000 are combat.

[JAF]

Stephen I agree totally with you on the real and practical reason for Canada having a sealift capable ship. The only problem I see for Canada is that we need a design that highlights lift more than assault from the sea. This capability (assault) should be included. Small armed forces like Canada need general purpose vessel capable of sealift, assault, command, disaster releif etc. This means cargo space, command facilities, hospital facilities, helicopters and enough space for a re-enforced company of troops or a JTF force to provide immediate presence or evacuation etc. The conclusion I have come to is it would be better in the long run to design a vessel from the keel up to fill such a role. We don't need a ship that can haul 700 guys, we don't have the 700 extra troops to put on them. We need a ship that can perform the above varied duties, with as low manpower requirements as possible. I still see advantages to having similiar hulls, superstructure and engines between the above described vessel and an AOR.

[stephen weist]

Bang on, but as long as the government decides what the Military needs, then like any major puchase that has been made for our defence, the troops will end up with, make do ,not, can do equipment.

[gf0012-aust]

Land force is down to approx 4,000 troops and of that I think less then 2000 are combat.

I had no idea it was run down that much!

[JAF]

Not trying to be disrespectful but I don't think that the Canadian army is down that far yet. The Armed forces comprises of just a hair shy of 60K troops.
10K for the navy. That means there are still 50K for army and airforce. I do not have exact figures but even if they are split 50/50 which I have to beleive the army would actually have more than 50%, than the army is atleast 25K. I would concede that of these 25K, well under 10K are combat arms. Probably in the area of 6-8k.

Now how this relates to the amphibious ships. When I said we do not have the 700 guys, I meant we do not have 700 extra guys free and clear. If we put 700 guys per ship these guys would be taken away from whatever committments they had previously.

[slapshot]

The CF regular troop strength is 62,300 in 2004 and reserve's are 23,000 personnel of all ranks, respectively and is ranked 60th in the world in terms of the ratio of troops to population. In addition, the Canadian Rangers, a force of about 4,000 mostly aboriginal reservists, provide the only military presence in many Arctic areas.

[Pursuit Curve]

From : http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/459363.html

What are peoples thoughts on this, I was wondering what Canada's amphibous requirements are, over other requirements, i can't think of many areas in their immediate region that would need an amphibious capability of that scale

Although, that said, i can see how the San Antonio class ship that is mentioned in the article would be a better choice than some kind of LHD, as i guess it could fill slightly more roles if needed (although im guessing)

So what are everyones thoughts on that subject, would it be better for Canada to focus on another area of the Navy or Airforce/Army first, or is this decision a good one?


The plan is to be able to transport resouces to trouble spots that would otherwise require leasing heavy air lift from other countries. It is the need to be able also to deploy forces to be able to defend a large coast line ( Canada ) and to also be able to contribute to international ops as part of caolitions etc etc.

[Pursuit Curve]

Pepsi, it all makes sense to me, we cannot rely over and over again on civillian contractors or other Air Forces to transport our people and equipment.

Also the term "Amphibious" is a double edged sword, when there are no port facilities then you have to go amphib, whether that is because of natural disasters or military purpose. Also what are the attack helicopter referred to in the main article? Unless of course Canada is in the market for Attack Choppers!

For the strategic needs of Canada, namely the Arctic, having these ships would be a great thing, it would mean that we could position troops and infrastructure where we need then, with out the need for air fields.

Also our humanitarian mission and UN missions would be greatly enhanced, as it would buy us some respect from partners that otherwise have to make room for us on their C141's and C17's, or any Antonov's that are for lease.

[stephen weist]

Pursuit curve, I think you missed the boat on the artic deployment. other than a few short weeks in the artic summer, the coast up there is not available due to ice. The only thing that can deploy troops up there would be aircraft(weather permitting), and the only other platform that could have any influence would be air independent subs. As the posibility of intruders is slim, I do not think the government looks at the northern coast as something to spend defence dollars on.

[Pursuit Curve]

Stephen, no I did not miss the point on artctic deployment, the one reason I brought that point up originally was that the current Canadian Warship Designs are without the strenthened hulls to be able to operate in arctic conditions, something that other Navies currently have, also a sea lift capability enables equipment and supplies as well as manpower to be pre positioned in optimal time periods.

With the further opening of Northern passages due to accelerated Ice melt, there is alot of traffic up there by nations eager to get at the resources that are there.

So in conclusion the Canadian Military has to have the abiblity to be able to deploy, The Amphibious capability will assist in getting equipment to areas where there are no ports or landing fields, you can get equipment theer to build landing fields and infrastructure, but only through sea lift.

[stephen weist]

Pursuit curve, what would you be pre positioning for, the attack of the Nunavut. And any epuip the canadian forces uses can be airlifted. and ice capable ships are the least of the navys worries.

[Pursuit Curve]

Pursuit curve, what would you be pre positioning for, the attack of the Nunavut. And any epuip the canadian forces uses can be airlifted. and ice capable ships are the least of the navys worries.

Stephen, they are worries when in recent excersises Canadian warships were concerned about ice they had to decrease speed and could not maneuvre with safety. Also if you think that the North does not have the interest of other countries for exploitation of our natural resources because of attitudes like the one that you just posted, then I think that bodes well for my point.

[PhillTaj]

I am certain that Canada will acquire LPD's at some point. It would make more sense to acquire a LHD, but lets face it, the CF are starved. If we operated an LHD, we'd need attack choppers, medium lift helis, landing craft, etc. We cant even afford to keep our ships sailing.

The Tories say they want to purchase helicoptor carriers, but remember, it was mulroney that talked all that rhetoric about maintaining a credible military, while at the same time he began the process that ruined the Canadian forces.

[Dr Phobus]

For canada too buy large 2 LPD/H makes a lot of sence, in that, the world is moving toward the experdistonary warfare. so since the candanians are always involved, I mainge is a good choose for them, hell, they could even buy a few F-35B and put them on there for CAS/sea control duties (okay i may be getting too ambious on that but look at what the italian Cavour really is?)

Moreover, there a real move toward wheeled (meduim) AFV's within canada, therefore, they will be able to carry more vechicels and kill more people, i mean enforce the peace.

:onfloorl:

[Whiskyjack]

I guess there has been a trend for Canada to move out of the Peace Keeping business over the past decade into more combat orientated areas, which has exposed the lack of funding. If Australia can go for two LPHs then Canada should be able to have a similar capability, backed up by two LPDs such as the Enforcer.

[Dr Phobus]

I agree, 2 LPD, 2 LPH, you realyl would not need a whole lot more. I also agree off the shelf design like enforce/ bay class makes sence. With Halifax and the anti air warfare ships, you'd have a nice little task force there..

Is there a requirment for seperate LPD's with the canadian navy ?

[JAF]

I would love for Canada to buy 2 LPH and 2 LPD's. However if we were to do so we likley would be split them into at least two task groups.

I just don't see any governemnt in this country doing that anytime soon. The conservatives would likely buy a couple LPD's such as Rotterdam or lease San Antonio's (I hope not.

[slapshot]

It is nice to dream but what Canada really needs is a defence policy that give's our military a defined mission. We have had goverment after goverment that has given our troops the very short end of the stick when it comes to money and support and no clear cut direction. All this talk about LPH'S and LHD's is a nice thought but impractical as the Canadian Armed Forces do not have the capibility to make these types of ships effective. We as a country can not spend less than 4% of our GDP ( Canada's est GPD for 2004 was $1.023 Trillion... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html but only spent $ 13 Billion on defence ) and expect to rebuild our forces in such a way as to make these types of purchases practical. Canada and Canadians needs to get its act together and give our armed forces a clearly defined purpose then give them the money and equipment to do it, not just LPH's but new AFV, Aircraft ( both airlift and fighter ), increase troop strength and also money for logistical support which is the weakest link in the Canadian Armed forces today. Buy LPH's or LHD's but lets make sure we have an armed forces that can use such ships effectively.

[Dr Phobus]

I would love for Canada to buy 2 LPH and 2 LPD's. However if we were to do so we likley would be split them into at least two task groups.

I just don't see any governemnt in this country doing that anytime soon. The conservatives would likely buy a couple LPD's such as Rotterdam or lease San Antonio's (I hope not.

THe san antonio's will be rather exspensive, the enforcer (16000T) class wouls be an excellent choose, of course, these can be fitted with fairly large hangers also, so if you were to buy more than two, maybe, a LPH will not be needed. Its needed, I am talking for a budget perspective.

[JAF]

[QUOTE=slapshot]...what Canada really needs is a defence policy that give's our military a defined mission..."

Slapshot, I think we have defined missions...I just think you may not agree with some of our defined missions. If you are implying that the Cf should have only one defined mission I disagree 100%. Flexibility is the name of the game.

"We have had goverment after goverment that has given our troops the very short end of the stick when it comes to money and support."

No argument from me on that point.

"All this talk about LPH'S and LHD's is a nice thought but impractical as the Canadian Armed Forces do not have the capibility to make these types of ships effective."

Cant say I agree. Canada's most frequent missions are expeditionary in nature and LPD's could only help with these missions.

"Canada and Canadians needs to get its act together and give our armed forces ...then give them the money and equipment to do it. "

Agreed 100%

, not just LPH's but new AFV, Aircraft ( both airlift and fighter ), increase troop strength and also money for logistical support which is the weakest link in the Canadian Armed forces today.[QUOTE]

Again we agree, but I try to leave discussion of troops and aircraft to the appropriate sections of the discussion board.

[JAF]

THe san antonio's will be rather exspensive, the enforcer (16000T) class wouls be an excellent choose, of course, these can be fitted with fairly large hangers also, so if you were to buy more than two, maybe, a LPH will not be needed. Its needed, I am talking for a budget perspective.

Doc I agree that San Antonio's would not be the way to go (my preference would still be the Rotterdam or Spanish equivalent). But any current generation LPD type would be welcomed.

[Dr Phobus]

When are they due to purchase/order these vessels. Also, any news on the air defence destoryer. ?

[JAF]

If there was a conservative governemnt elected (Regrettably a big if) Than I would say we could feesabley have an order in the next 4-5 years. :unknown

If the Liberals are re-elected:shudder ...sometime between never and when hell freezes over...:(

We need sea lift. We also need a long list of just about everything so I just don't see LPD's winning out over new AOR's for the navy, new AAW platforms, new LIFT for the airforce and more LAV III's for the army.

To directly answer your question about AAW platforms. Now would be a great time, however probably 8-10 years away for that. Again there's just too many things on the list.

[Dr Phobus]

Thanks for the political up-date. Interesting, point about the need of additional LAV's and sea lift. The elections are in Febuary ? :o

[slapshot]

Jaf I meant by defined mission was give the CF a clear understanding of what our goverment wants from them :). We seem to elect goverments that like to flip flop on defence policies far to often. I am not in the military but I think we have some of the finest troops in the world and we have proven our ability to fight more than once over the years and with the right direction and right equipment our forces are hard to beat. You maybe right Jaf about the LPD improving our ability to do some of the missions we are task to undertake, I don't know much about what the capibilities of a LPD or LHD so you may very well be right, just want to make sure we do not put the cart before the horse.

[Dr Phobus]

I think the canadian's will follow the path similar to that of the dutch. Singifincant reduction in surface warship numbers, but larger more capable platforms with ASW, ASuf, land attack, AAW ability (like the LCF), with this add to a few other smaller -halifax- ships for escort & ASW.

The larger LPD's (the dutch have 2, not as large as the bays class) will have a significant untlity in the world of power projection. I think the mistral class, 21000T, would be a more affordable option, more capable than the "bay" class, less exspensive than the spainsh 28000T type.

I wanna hear from Canadix :D

[JAF]

In the December edition of Warships: International Fleet Review, pg 7 there is a Headline "Canadian navy to Aquire Amphib", the ensuing article says Canada is looking at purchasing an off the shelf LPD as early as 2007, and the leading candidate is an American Austin Class.

Has anyone heard any more details of this???

[Dr Phobus]

In the December edition of Warships: International Fleet Review, pg 7 there is a Headline "Canadian navy to Aquire Amphib", the ensuing article says Canada is looking at purchasing an off the shelf LPD as early as 2007, and the leading candidate is an American Austin Class.

Has anyone heard any more details of this???

I have read nothing to that effect in JDW. The austin is a much older design, 1960's ?, the Whitley class (1980's) and San antonio (1990's) are much newer platforms. The dutch enforcer design is scalable 12000-16000T, and 6 units have been produced, i am surprized this design is not a serious contender. Still, what do i know !!

[JAF]

The article states that a 'Hot transfer' of an Austin LPD is a stop gap between having none and an impending order. The long term prospects in the article Spanish/Dutch Rotterdam/Galicia, the UK Bay and Italian San Giorgio


My bad for not including that info.

[Sea Toby]

The Canadians will probably get an Austin for the near term, although old they still have some life left in them. For the long term it appears they will build two or more large multi-role ships, a replenishment ship with a ro/ro cargo capacity. I doubt whether the Canadians are interested that much into amphibious operations, they just want the sealift capability to move a battalion or two for peacekeeping purposes.

Ever since the US Navy has requested that other nations have a better sealilft capacity, a lot of nations are searching for a muti-role ships. Denmark built a large frigate with a ro/ro cargo deck, New Zealand is building a ferry which can do fishery protection and training duties, Portugal is on the verge of building a 10,000 ton oiler/mini-flat top ro/ro cargo ship as both their small oiler and landing ships are old. Other navies such as Ireland, Norway, and Belgium are also searching for sea lift in a multi-role ship. None of these smaller navies really want a dedicated LPD. The Pentagon has noticed its difficult to move its own forces when so much of its shipping is tied up moving others....

[Sea Dog]

The article states that a 'Hot transfer' of an Austin LPD is a stop gap between having none and an impending order. The long term prospects in the article Spanish/Dutch Rotterdam/Galicia, the UK Bay and Italian San Giorgio


My bad for not including that info.


Canada may want to also keep an eye on the Spanish Navy's new "Strategic Projection Ship" (Buque de proyeccion estrategica). A sort of smaller version of the US LHD's.


http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/6430/spanishlpd7jx.th.jpg (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spanishlpd7jx.jpg)