Author Topic: F-35 and Canadian Navy  (Read 130884 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline munky99999

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 62
F-35 and Canadian Navy
« on: June 04, 2006, 18:13:05 »
At the moment we don’t have a carrier. Pretty understandable as we don’t have the funds (billions) to purchase a carrier which could operate the planes which we have. (CF-18) In the future when our cf-18s get decommissioned and replaced with the f-35 we won’t require a steam catapult; the airplanes could simply use the VTOL to get into the air. So instead of a carrier like the Nimitz class we could operate and use an amphibious assault carrier.
As for the facts: I don’t know for sure. I’m pretty sure we are replacing the CF-18s with the f-35. I’m assuming we will be able to either rig up the f-35s with the different setups. CTOL-SCTOL-VTOL or buy them in the amount wanted.

And as far as I can tell Nimitz class carriers are around 4 billion$ each. While ship classes like the USS ESSEX are much less.

My question is: Is it feasible?

Offline Da_man

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 573
  • Infantry
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2006, 18:22:06 »
I believe more crew is required on a Nimitz class than there is in the entire canadian navy...  As for the F-35 Canada funded a small part of the project, but i dont think there are any official intentions of buying.
YOU! No, you. Not You! YOU!

Offline Britney Spears

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,307
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2006, 18:31:24 »
You're talking about the Wasp Class LHD USS Essex, and not the Essex Class CVs that were build in 1942, right?
"I'd vote for you."
  -TCBF, whiskey601.

"Britney, if you wern't so young I would kiss you!"
  -a_majoor.

Offline munky99999

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 62
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2006, 18:58:38 »
Quote
I believe more crew is required on a Nimitz class than there is in the entire Canadian navy...  As for the F-35 Canada funded a small part of the project, but i don't think there are any official intentions of buying.
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_images/gallery/gallery_images/large/HS2002-10188-061.jpg
We used to have a carrier(Bonaventure)... decommissioned in 1970
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_images/gallery/gallery_images/large/hs20017025-005_L.jpg
Picture of an American ship I'm suggesting we might be interested in.
Quote
You're talking about the Wasp Class LHD USS Essex, and not the Essex Class CVs that were build in 1942, right?
Indeed. I'm not suggesting for sure a wasp class though.

Offline munky99999

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 62
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2006, 19:36:28 »
I missed the f-35 official position statement. While I suppose you’re correct, I’m not sure about it. There are a lot of threads going around about JSF being the replacement for the cf-18.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39211.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.0.html
Big one.^^^
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39415.0.html
Sorta-official

Personally my opinion would be JSF over all the other suggested multi-role planes. Though the F-22x would be better but to expensive.

I would LOVE to see a Canadian designed plane taken from the A-10 warthog design, but designed to be more multi-role and stealth-like.

I would also LOVE to see our own AWAC planes which could be launched VTOL or at least SCTOL which would allow these AWAC planes to assist the f-35 planes on the amphibious assault carrier.

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2006, 22:16:16 »
I would also LOVE to see our own AWAC planes which could be launched VTOL or at least SCTOL which would allow these AWAC planes to assist the f-35 planes on the amphibious assault carrier.

A few navies use helicopters as a AWAC platform for their carriers. The Russians and the Indians use the Kamov Ka-31 Helix, the Royal Navy and their Sea King AEW helos come to mind as solutions. The RN is however looking to replace their Sea King AEW's with either a EH-101 Merlin derivative or a V-22 Osprey derived AEW system.

Offline Navy_Blue

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
  • Dolphin Code "32"
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2006, 20:04:40 »
Can't see us getting VTOL F-35.  Normal F-35's yes but not VTOL even if we did we have allot on our plate without looking for a small carrier.   Personally I would like an Enforcer Class Ship the Dutch are building OR the small Carriers the French just built.  Very cool and could even fit our BHS plans.  Could fly limited F-35 sorties from them both as well.

 :cdn:
Kirk: "do you always estimate your repair times by a factor of four?" Scotty: "Aye sir how do you think I keep my reputation as a miracle worker."

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2006, 04:23:20 »
Couple of other solutions other than Enforcer and San Antonio that are around the same size:
France's Nouveaux Transports de Chalands de Débarquement (NTCD)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mistral.htm
Technical description:
Quote
With a tonnage of about 20,000 tons with full load, the NTCD will have a maximum speed of 19 knots and will have a crew with 160 men. They will be able to embark 450 men and 60 vehicles. They will be equipped with a continuous flight deck with 6 spots for NH90 and Tiger helicopters, and with a capacity to store 10 to 16 helicopters in a hangar. The will be able to embark 4 barges of unloading or 2 machines on American air cushions. The choice carried out is coherent with the national concept of the operations amphibians which gives the priority to the aeromobility of the troops transported thanks to helicopters. Vertical takeoff aircraft do not enter this concept. At the time of an amphibian operation, aerial cover and fire support are ensured by the planes embarked aboard an aircraft carrier. In the event of absence of the "Charles of Gaulle" this support would be provided, within the framework of a European operation, by allied aircraft carriers. A significant effort is in particular made on the transmission resources and the command and information systems for the needs for a interarmées PC of theatre and interallied of 150 workstations installed on board, extensible by addition of modules (shelters), supporting interworking with French allies.

Significant evolution has occurred compared to the TCD Siroco. The installations of setting the amphibious machines, the helicopters and the vehicles consist of a covered foundation raft immergeable, of a hangar for vehicles, a hangar for helicopters and two lifting platforms. The various hangars are served by one or two lifting platforms (1 for the hangar vehicles, 2 for the hangar helicopters). The access of the vehicles is carried out by a side carry-slope and a carry-slope foundation raft. The organization of the whole of the platform was the subject of studies where the architectural choices privilege the optimization of flows (vehicles, helicopters, personnel, casualties, food and ammunition) and take account of the needs increased for interworking (US hovercrafts LCAC, allied helicopters of which Super Stallion, convertible aircraft - with swinging rotors - V22 Osprey).

The versatility offered by the design allows the use of the building in various versions according to missions: mixed version (450 passengers / 60 vehicles / 6 helicopters), version building helicopter carrier (possible carrying to 16 helicopters), version transport (more than 230 vehicles), version building of command. The system of combat with which will be equipped the NTCD will make it possible to provide the functions of control of the operations, self-defence, command, internal and external communications to the building, and the functions transverse: navigation, network of the wind. The telecommunications part will be particularly developed, taking into account the requirements in a number of simultaneous connections and in flow imposed by the missions of command (PC NOE, PC ATF/LF (1)). This system will integrate a whole of capacities HF, VHF, UHF, SHF and the tactical data links, and will offer communications interior and external with services with strong added value (phone, data, images).

South Korea's LP-X Dokdo (Landing Platform eXperimental) Amphibious Ship

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/lp-x.htm
Technical description:
Quote
Being 200 meters long, 31 meters wide and displacing 14,000 tons [18,000 fully loaded], the ship will carry 700 troops, 10 CH-60 helicopters, seven amphibious vehicles, six tanks and two small landing boats. The ships can be used in a wide range of activities, including UN peacekeeping operations and disaster relief. For this reason, the LP-X is expected to usher in a new era of expanded Korean naval prowess, since it can be used for relief, transport, and other peacetime activities.

With a light displacement of 14,000 tons the LP-X is not only be the largest vessel in the Korean Navy but also substantially larger than the similar Osumi-class landing ship (8,900 tons) of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, and with a larger payload capacity as well, making it the regions largest of its kind. Previously, the largest ship in the Korean Navy was the 9,000-ton support vessel Cheonji.

The LPX is a high-speed amphibious ship, based on the concept of "over-the- horizon assault." As the name indicates, the "over-the-horizon assault" comprises a military operation in which an amphibious landing operation is conducted with high-speed air-cushioned vehicles and helicopters from beyond the horizon, where they can’t be detected or attacked by the enemy. The conventional LST (landing ship tank) has to approach the coastline for landing, at the risk of being fired upon by the enemy.

The LP-X can carry a battalion of marines (about 700 men), 10 armored vehicles, up to 200 vehicles, 15 helicopters, and two LCAC hovercrafts capable of landing on enemy shores doing 40 knots -- a mix that enables it to launch troop landings from both sea and air.

The hull consists of four decks, this highest of which is the 1st deck [the flight deck], with the bridge superstructure. The flight deck can accomodated five UH-60 helicopters simultaneously. When the budget situation is improved, there is the possibilty that the NH-90 or the E101 Merlin will be adopted. An airplane hanger can be added for the UH-60 transportation helicopter and the AH-1 attack helicopter. An airplane shed spanning the lower deck is planned with multilayer structure and 2 formation elevator and 1 cadence elevator.

If it were equipped with a ski jump board module, 15-17 meters in length, it could operate short-range and vertical landing/take-off aircraft such as the Harrier or F-35B. Ships of this type are sometimes called a semi-aircraft carrier. However, Korean military authorities have made it clear that they have no plan to convert the LPX into such a semi-aircraft carrier. However, its flight deck is coated with special Urethane to resist heat generated from aircraft.

The 2nd deck is composed with the rooms of the dwelling sector, the command post and utility system of the crew. It will be able to accommodate a landing party with a strength 700 persons.

The 3rd deck includes the well-dock for loading the 2 LCACs. It is able to load 70 tanks or 200 truck, but normally the load is 10 helicopters and 2 tank companies, along with their support equipment. While being entirely mechanized, it will be able to accommodate 1 battalion strength and the equipment and armament.

At the lower part stern there is an entrance and exit door which is how the LCAC comes in and out. The LCAC is accommodated with a length and width of 26.4m X 14.3m. It loads the equipment with a total weight of 60-75 ton fullly loaded, and can sustain a speed 74Km/hr (40 knot). At this speed the cruise range is 320Km, and at 65Km/hr (35 knot) the range is 480Km. Generally it will be able to embark the individual basic load strength of 1 tank with 2 squads together. The LCAC is able to attempt landing in the coastal areas of 70% of the coasts. After landing it is able to operate in even until more deeply inland.

The LP-X is a multi-functional vessel. It can also function as a command vessel for the Navy’s three-dimensional mobile operations. A combat commanding system, equipped with a digital C41SR function, can manage and control support vessels, aircraft and their weapons, on a real-time basis, so that the landing troops can make a prompt and effective response to the enemy’s status. In other words, it can serve as a base vessel that commands a strategic mobile operation fleet consisting of KDX-III (Aegis vessel) and KDX-II (Korean destroyer) vessels and submarines. The LP-X can function as the flagship with a command bridge established on the deck top island. The battle command system with the digital C41SR function was purchased in 2002 for 52,900,000,000 won [about $50,000,000].

Japan's Osumi Class LST

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/osumi.htm
Technical description:
Quote
he 584-foot Oosumi has a long, uncluttered vehicle parking deck topside that is surmounted by a blocky "island" superstructure offset somewhat to starboard, giving an appearance suggesting to some that she is somehow intended to be employed in the future as an aircraft carrier. The JMSDF, however, insists that the ship can handle only a pair of CH-47 Chinook helicopters and two SH-60J patrol helicopters. The small elevator forward is used to bring vehicles to and from the flight deck, rather than to stow aircraft below deck.

The design boasts an immense upper deck, with an overall length of 160m, breadth of 25.8m and houses a vehicle loading space on the front and a helicopter landing deck on the rear. The front of her hull supports a 100m long vehicle deck. In combination with the upper deck, the loading of between ten and twenty tanks and about forty large scale vehicles is possible.

In the rear of the hull, there is a 60m long space for two LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushions) placed end to end. The first transport hovercraft of the JSDF, the LCAC rides on a cushion of air over water or land at a height of 1.2m at a maximum speed of 40kt (74km/h).

The JSDF's first hovercraft-type transport "air-cushion" is capable of both land and sea travel. The vehicle hovers 1.2m above water/ground via air-power and can reach speeds of 40knots (74km/h). With a loading capacity of 50tons and overall length of 27m, the hovercraft is capable of transporting 1 Type-90 tank or over 10 light vehicles. The LCAC has a crew of 5 and can also accommodate 24 JGSDF troops.

Osumi gives the JMSDF a modest lift capability, especially in defense of the outer islands. The "Ohsumi" type of vessel enables the efficient transport of JDS gournd troops to strategic locations, rescue of civillians in case of large scale natural disaster, and potentially functions as a suplly base for United Nations Peace Keeping Operations. The massive hull features armored and opening deck. The rear of hull houses an armored landing deck for two large CH-47 helicopters. The well-dock in the rear of the ship houses the two LCAC hovercraft.

Plans were drawn up in 1993, and in March of 1998, the biggest transport ship of the JMSDF, the "Ohsumi" was deployed. The next Japanese defense ship to be released in that series is the "LST-4002 Shimokita". This ship was constructed with the longest hull of all the ships in the JMSDF and first left the docks on 29 November 2000. Its massive hull houses space for two "LCAC" hovercraft transport vessels. To enlarge the armored deck of "Shimokita", it was constructed to flare out over the hull.

LST-4002 Shimokita, which went into service on November, 2000. Adapting stealth technology, Shimokita's bridge area was constructed with flat surfaces. She boasts an immense upper deck, with an overall length of 160m and total breadth of 25.8m. The front deck is devoted to vehicle loading space and the rear deck serves as a heliport. The front of her hull is 100m long and combined with her upper deck can transport up to 10 tanks or other large military vehicles. The rear hull is 60m long and acts as a well-dock housing LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushions). The Shimokita has a crew of 130, and can transport 330 ground troops. During the event of a disaster she can accommodate over 1000 civilians.

Offline munky99999

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 62
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2006, 14:34:53 »
The French small carrier would definitely be a good option but I am still not suggesting it matters. As for if we will buy VTOL f-35 planes? How could be possibly conclude that when we can’t even officially conclude we will purchase the f-35 to begin with.

Take the French carrier, then outfit some sea kings or cyclones that we already have and do as the British are doing with their AWACS helis, and then have VTOL f-35s working off them also. It would be so great.

Alternatively an AWACS on an Osprey plane or something very similar would be great.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,725
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2006, 15:03:04 »
It would take many, many years to cycle the Navy up to get back into supporting fixed wing operations from a heaving deck, whether or not VTOL.  I seriously question whether it would be worth the effort (and the crew discomfort*) when considered in the context of all the other Naval priorities that must first be addressed.   Operating a few large rotary wing aircraft from a vessel with a 300-400 foot flight deck is one thing, but making the leap to VTOL is quite another. The air force crew component for a single such ship would be huge.  You also have to be able to support the ship underway, and screen and defend it from attack.  A billion dollar project becomes a 5 billion dollar project, without either 1 or 5 billion to spend. In any event, it's too expensive and far too unsavory from a political perspective, at least right now.


* check out the crew accommodations, even on a modern carrier- the Navy already has a retention problem partly due to unresolved lifestyle issues aboardship. The air force  accommodations would be less than 4 star, so its a probably a no-go from the start on their end, except for Helo crews who are well conditioned, willing to take on some sea duties.

Hell, I bet a large chunk of the Navy would take a pass once they figure out would be required of them. The stress and sea evolutions would be unbelievable and difficult to manage in the inevitable circumstances of an understrength crew for such a show boat ship.

Cheers

Offline munky99999

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 62
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2006, 16:29:58 »
whiskey601, you make it sound like if they have the option they would deny it. On the other hand I look at the Americans navy pilots who indeed WANT to stay aboard the carriers. The movie Top Gun alone attests to this pretty much.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2006, 16:44:28 »
whiskey601, you make it sound like if they have the option they would deny it. On the other hand I look at the Americans navy pilots who indeed WANT to stay aboard the carriers. The movie Top Gun alone attests to this pretty much.

You're basing your opinion of what the USN pilots want on a 20 year old movie? Any idea how many ships you would require to protect your 3000-5000 man, $1+ Billion carrier?

We have manning problems, period. There's a reason the 4th 280 class destroyer is no longer in service, and that's only 240 or so sailors, let alone a carrier and it's air wing plus the rest of the ships in the carrier battle group.

Oh and FYI, the Brit Sea Kings are hardly AWACS, they were Airborne Early Warning aircraft, now designated as Airborne Surveillance and Area Control aircraft. They don't have air controllers on board like the AWACS, they have a crew of 3 (1 pilot and 2 observers as they call them), all they basically do is expand the radar horizon of the fleet via radar and datalink, they certainly don't control air assets like the AWACS or Hawkeyes do.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,003
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2006, 17:03:23 »
Carriers have been discussed before munky....
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Navy_Blue

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
  • Dolphin Code "32"
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2006, 17:11:32 »
Tell me he didn't use Top Gun  as an example of pilots liking to sail ::)
Kirk: "do you always estimate your repair times by a factor of four?" Scotty: "Aye sir how do you think I keep my reputation as a miracle worker."

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,725
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2006, 22:45:54 »
whiskey601, you make it sound like if they have the option they would deny it. .

If someone was giving brand new aircraft carriers away, they should take it, sell it and use the money to fix a few of the other problems in the Navy before going down the path of an aircraft carrier.

Offline karl28

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2006, 23:16:12 »
I'm not a military expert but the idea of a carrier seems just to unrealistic what the Navy should concentrate on is more frigates and more modern submarines and maybe if we are lucky a couple of small amphibious assault ships .  A larger more capable submarine force can be just as dangerous as one carrier group at I would think so but like I stated above I am not an expert and I am way out of my lane on this but it makes more sense to concentrate on assault ships / frigates/ and subs but I really do not know a whole lot about the Navy.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2006, 01:01:26 by karl28 »

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,003
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2006, 11:07:43 »
Well said karl28, add to your suggestion of an up to date command platform with AAD and an AOR and we are in business.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline karl28

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2006, 13:16:54 »
Ex-Dragoon    just a couple of quick questions for you .  I think AAD is anti aircraft capabilities but what does AOR mean thanks ?

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2006, 15:36:02 »
AORs are tankers for refueling ships at sea.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Code5

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 465
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2006, 23:44:27 »
Quote
Tell me he didn't use Top Gun  as an example of pilots liking to sail 

Actually, I thought Top Gun was an excellent documentary on the mating practices of US Navy aviators...

Offline karl28

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2006, 01:49:02 »
Inch  thanks for the heads up like I stated in the above I am out of my lane on this topic but the Navy is something that I always find interesting

Offline HFXCrow

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2006, 04:29:40 »
35 year old destroyers...40 year old sea kings............................

training cycles, procurement, bidding......another 20 years

I thought I saw a Cyclone the other day.....LOL
Enjoying the ride and doesn't want to get off

Offline munky99999

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 62
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2006, 08:13:11 »
Actually, I thought Top Gun was an excellent documentary on the mating practices of US Navy aviators...
Well still. Even if top gun is outdated, the USA still has what 10 Nimitz carriers around. and about. 2500 air-wing each therefore as of TODAY, there is A LOT of people still choosing to stay on the carriers and run the aircraft systems and etc. If the life style is so bad, I’m guessing there are people around who are silly enough to do it. Also carriers must be worth the money to run once purchased and manned. Hell I’m not aware of what that French amphibious carrier uses as fuel. But Canada is known for nuclear power. Nice CANDU reactor would be pretty good.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2006, 09:47:26 »
I thought I saw a Cyclone the other day.....LOL

BS!  ;D

Well still. Even if top gun is outdated, the USA still has what 10 Nimitz carriers around. and about. 2500 air-wing each therefore as of TODAY, there is A LOT of people still choosing to stay on the carriers and run the aircraft systems and etc. If the life style is so bad, I’m guessing there are people around who are silly enough to do it. Also carriers must be worth the money to run once purchased and manned. Hell I’m not aware of what that French amphibious carrier uses as fuel. But Canada is known for nuclear power. Nice CANDU reactor would be pretty good.

Oh, I get it, we're playing the numbers game. Well compare the 3200 that sail the ship for the air wing. I guess being a sailor is better than being an aviator, let alone the other hundred+ ships the USN has. There's almost 6 times the number of enlisted members as compared to officers in the USN and all USN pilots are officers, so I guess being enlisted is a better lifestyle.  :(
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Code5

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 465
Re: F-35 and Canadian Navy
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2006, 14:03:28 »
Still the question that begs an answer is where are you going to get
a) the money for a major capital investment for a carrier,
b) the capital for the airwing,
c) the aviators for said airwing,
d) how are you going to train the crew for carrier operations,
e) where are you going to get the crew for the carrier,
f) what ships are you going to use for her escort,
g) will they be permanently tied to the carrier
h) which coast are you going to put the carrier
i) are you going to have to cannibalize the other coast to provide escorts for the carrier
j) and most importantly, why does Canada need a carrier at this time?