In terms of attack helicopters, go with the AW249!!! Like the AH64 Apache "E" variant is an impressive platform, but it's just an updated version of an old platform. The AW249 is the new kid on the block that has the potential to be the premiere attack helicopter of the future.
In terms of the future fighter trainer aircraft, I would go for the South Korean KAI T-50!!!
I still think the AH-1Z viper with the radar pod would be a better choice if we are to obtain amphibious assault ships, as they are designed for salt water ops and have fold away blades and a narrow body for better storage within these types of ships.
Noah - there are a lot of spelling mistakes in your articles (or should I say 'variations' in word presentation) that could be easily addressed. I use Grammarly.comwww.grammarly.com/grammar-check. It is a tool that helps with proofreading. As I deal with mild dyslexia, it is a lifelong tool I trust and has helped me through university and with a Graduate degree.
Yeah, I skipped the spellcheck this time around. Im also Dyslexic! I love Grammerly on desktop, but not phone where I do 99% of my work. I find thr phone version a bit wonky.
Big issue with the torpedo on a drone is; "Can it return and safely land on the ship with the torpedo still onboard? If you have to ditch one of your limited number of torpedo's every time you launch, then their use will quickly become limited.
I would also like to see the Lionfish 30mm put onto the AOP's, JSS and any other ships we build/buy, so we have a common light gun through the fleet.
Awhile back I wondered about Arctic bases and thought outside of a mobile base, why don’t we take a page from Antarctic research stations. Why don’t we build modular bases that could be deployed to various locations. They are capable of extreme weather and some with stilt legs capable of raising and lowering, which could be ideal set up for issues with permafrost etc. They can be occupied year round and in summer tented detachments could be brought in for training etc. These could also act as hubs to help provide services to smaller local communities as doctor/dentist, or module for community space/school. These could have a fixed design, built in modules offsite and shipped to location where the could be set up quickly with minimal impact to environment and be more cost effective. I wonder if the government considered these.
I do think the Navy needs to address the Rivers. If they are suppose to be good ASW ships, then that is what they should have been built as. Their current radar is better suited for an AAW vessel or one countering Missile threats (hyper etc). While the radar system does allow them to track more objects. The lack of fire power on them proves they were ill conceived. Why have a ship capable of tracking and destroying a missile with an sm3 yet is outfitted with only with essm, sm2 and tomahawk. An AAW version or vessel would be better in capability to act as a true continental defence vessel providing air coverage to defend ASW ships and missile attacks without relying on allies. Not having some air support ships doesn’t make sense to me.
We have Rivers, so let’s take a step back and rethink them. They are an ASW vessel as primary mission but if we can’t make them do more with what they have and short of a 10/5 split where 10 have bays and 5 have AAW capabilities and given the high cost of these ships, maybe the solution is off boarding.
What about building a smaller escort class ship that isn’t unmanned but lightly manned. Automate systems and have small operational crew. Just a quiet fast boat with similar endurance as River, but has 16 VLS and high energy weapons. Most of the ship could be designated for CUBE style systems. Build a bunch of these that could be extended weapon batteries for the River and other support vessels to extend their range, functionality and the crew would be part of the larger ship so you could rotate and make use of ship resources without dedicated crew resources per ship. To pay for them, cut a couple of Rivers and add a couple CDC for total surface vessels. Heck it could utilize the same systems of CDC. Having a cheaper drone/escort that can be assigned to ships could be linked to River, provide extra fire power, and if we can build them cheap enough, have one or two per ship. Just scale weapon system up or down depending upon numbers. I know the Navy is taking a wait and see approach to unmanned but what if lightly manned that could be made unmanned is the right solution for a lower cost functional vessel with limited crew. It would also give the Rivers greater capability by dedicating some VLS on escort or river to longer distance weapons, sm6 etc.
With respect to Arctic-capable ships, Canada would do well by procuring and deploying a RCN 'Arctic Mobile Base' (a support ship with air and landing capabilities, and stores, fuel, medical and other services), pending (costly and long) development of permanent infrastructure in the North. One or more Arctic Mobile Base would provide much more flexibility. The terms 'Amphibious Assault Ship' and 'Amphibious Landing Ship' as used in recent articles should be avoided. Shades of Iwo Jima and Normandy, and people will compare with US, Russian, Chinese, etc., amphibious forces and what they do (power projection). Amphibiosity (UK term), whether assaults against hostile shores or raids, is not something the RCN is espousing (though it did have landing forces in the Second World War). Besides, 'amphibious' is usually an adjective to 'warfare' and 'landing' to 'ship.' To assist public understanding, the terminology should be clear from the beginning.
In terms of attack helicopters, go with the AW249!!! Like the AH64 Apache "E" variant is an impressive platform, but it's just an updated version of an old platform. The AW249 is the new kid on the block that has the potential to be the premiere attack helicopter of the future.
In terms of the future fighter trainer aircraft, I would go for the South Korean KAI T-50!!!
I still think the AH-1Z viper with the radar pod would be a better choice if we are to obtain amphibious assault ships, as they are designed for salt water ops and have fold away blades and a narrow body for better storage within these types of ships.
can never have enough AOR
am doubtful about attack helicopters
Noah - there are a lot of spelling mistakes in your articles (or should I say 'variations' in word presentation) that could be easily addressed. I use Grammarly.com www.grammarly.com/grammar-check. It is a tool that helps with proofreading. As I deal with mild dyslexia, it is a lifelong tool I trust and has helped me through university and with a Graduate degree.
Yeah, I skipped the spellcheck this time around. Im also Dyslexic! I love Grammerly on desktop, but not phone where I do 99% of my work. I find thr phone version a bit wonky.
It’s TUTOR!!! As in teacher.
Big issue with the torpedo on a drone is; "Can it return and safely land on the ship with the torpedo still onboard? If you have to ditch one of your limited number of torpedo's every time you launch, then their use will quickly become limited.
I would also like to see the Lionfish 30mm put onto the AOP's, JSS and any other ships we build/buy, so we have a common light gun through the fleet.
It’s all good! My French is absolutely atrocious but I excel at decrypting typos! And I was 8 years old when the Tutor entered RCAF service…
Awhile back I wondered about Arctic bases and thought outside of a mobile base, why don’t we take a page from Antarctic research stations. Why don’t we build modular bases that could be deployed to various locations. They are capable of extreme weather and some with stilt legs capable of raising and lowering, which could be ideal set up for issues with permafrost etc. They can be occupied year round and in summer tented detachments could be brought in for training etc. These could also act as hubs to help provide services to smaller local communities as doctor/dentist, or module for community space/school. These could have a fixed design, built in modules offsite and shipped to location where the could be set up quickly with minimal impact to environment and be more cost effective. I wonder if the government considered these.
I do think the Navy needs to address the Rivers. If they are suppose to be good ASW ships, then that is what they should have been built as. Their current radar is better suited for an AAW vessel or one countering Missile threats (hyper etc). While the radar system does allow them to track more objects. The lack of fire power on them proves they were ill conceived. Why have a ship capable of tracking and destroying a missile with an sm3 yet is outfitted with only with essm, sm2 and tomahawk. An AAW version or vessel would be better in capability to act as a true continental defence vessel providing air coverage to defend ASW ships and missile attacks without relying on allies. Not having some air support ships doesn’t make sense to me.
We have Rivers, so let’s take a step back and rethink them. They are an ASW vessel as primary mission but if we can’t make them do more with what they have and short of a 10/5 split where 10 have bays and 5 have AAW capabilities and given the high cost of these ships, maybe the solution is off boarding.
What about building a smaller escort class ship that isn’t unmanned but lightly manned. Automate systems and have small operational crew. Just a quiet fast boat with similar endurance as River, but has 16 VLS and high energy weapons. Most of the ship could be designated for CUBE style systems. Build a bunch of these that could be extended weapon batteries for the River and other support vessels to extend their range, functionality and the crew would be part of the larger ship so you could rotate and make use of ship resources without dedicated crew resources per ship. To pay for them, cut a couple of Rivers and add a couple CDC for total surface vessels. Heck it could utilize the same systems of CDC. Having a cheaper drone/escort that can be assigned to ships could be linked to River, provide extra fire power, and if we can build them cheap enough, have one or two per ship. Just scale weapon system up or down depending upon numbers. I know the Navy is taking a wait and see approach to unmanned but what if lightly manned that could be made unmanned is the right solution for a lower cost functional vessel with limited crew. It would also give the Rivers greater capability by dedicating some VLS on escort or river to longer distance weapons, sm6 etc.
With respect to Arctic-capable ships, Canada would do well by procuring and deploying a RCN 'Arctic Mobile Base' (a support ship with air and landing capabilities, and stores, fuel, medical and other services), pending (costly and long) development of permanent infrastructure in the North. One or more Arctic Mobile Base would provide much more flexibility. The terms 'Amphibious Assault Ship' and 'Amphibious Landing Ship' as used in recent articles should be avoided. Shades of Iwo Jima and Normandy, and people will compare with US, Russian, Chinese, etc., amphibious forces and what they do (power projection). Amphibiosity (UK term), whether assaults against hostile shores or raids, is not something the RCN is espousing (though it did have landing forces in the Second World War). Besides, 'amphibious' is usually an adjective to 'warfare' and 'landing' to 'ship.' To assist public understanding, the terminology should be clear from the beginning.