British warships head for the Middle East.

July 18th, 2006, 10:10 PM

Yes I am sure, but thanks for checking in with me. When a Nation has 268 of its 281 warships tasked out (95%), that is stretched thin to me. You also have to keep in mind that an evacuation of this magnitude requires certain criteria in its ships. You cannot send a destroyer (lets say a United States Arleigh Burke class) which has a maximum compliment of 300 (that's filled to capacity) to evacuate people. Where would you put them? Furthermore take in the bulk of the United States surface fleet; Oliver Hazard Perry Class as well as Ticonderoga Class warships. They are small, compact, war vessels, with no ability to take on refugees. The task for mass-evac falls to the amphibious arm of the Navy. However, given the current state of the World, those resources are finite for the U.S. The chief amphibious vessel of the United States Navy is the WASP Class Amphibious Assault Ship (an assault carrier if you will), that can carry over 2,500 men in surge mode in addition to its crew. There are currently seven (7) of these vessels (with an eigth in production). Of those seven, as you can see from my previous post three (3) alone are currently tasked out; pacific ocean/red sea. A fourth, the USS Essex, is based in Sasebo Japan. That leaves three WASP Class unaccounted for. As the U.S. Navy does not post (wisely) the location of deployed Naval vessels, it is quite safe to assume that the remaining three are deployed in support of the War in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. The simple truth is that the U.S. Navy does not have available, currently, the means to facilite a mass evacuation of the scale required.

With regard to Canada, and our deployment post-hurricane. First off, we deployed four (4) vessels (get your facts straights):

Guided Missile Frigate = HMCS Toronto
Guided Missile Frigate = HMCS Ville de Quebec
Command and Control Destroyer = HMCS Athabaskan
Canadian Coast Guard Cruiser = CCGS Sir William Alexander

Link

With that in mind, i'd hope, given your somewhat off-the-cuff remark, you'd at least have a concept of the makeup of the present-day Canadian Navy. We currently have:

Guide Missile Frigates: 12
Command and Control Air Defence Destroyers: 4
Auxiliary Oil and Replenishment Ships: 2
Coastol Defence (mine sweeper) Ships: 12
Long Range Patrol Submarines: 4
TOTAL:34

If we break down even further, of that 34 vessels, what ships would have been of any use to the United States, we have to automatically rule out the four submarines as they were at the time, and still are, unfit for service. Our 12 Kingston Class Coastal Defence vessels would also have been useless. They have a max cruising speed of 15 knots and are not designed for open-sea travel. They are a coastal defence vessel with limited mine-warfare capability, crewed by 30 Naval Reservists, nothing more, nothing less. That leaves 18 vessels that would have made some impact on the Gulf Coast. Of those 18 vessels, 9 are based at Her Majestys Canadian Dockyard Esquimalt B.C., on the other side of the continent of the Gulf Coast. That now leaves 9 vessels on the Atlantic Coast. At the time of Katrina (Fall 2005), the disposition of the following Naval vessels (according to the Canadian Navys website Operations and Exercises section) was:

HMCS Charlottetown - High readiness to deploy
HMCS Montreal - In port
HMCS Fredriction - Arabian Sea (my friend was onboard at the time)
HMCS Toronto - On the way to the Gulf Coast
HMCS St. Johns - In port
HMCS Ville De Quebec - On the way to the Gulf Coast

HMCS Iroquouis - Arabian Sea
HMCS Athabaskan - On the way to the Gulf Coast

HMCS Preserver - Arabian Sea

As you can see, of our Navy is also stretched thin (due to our limited size). We had 9 vessels capable of rendering aid, of which 3 were in the Arabian Sea, 1 was on high readiness to deploy, and 5 were in port. The decision to send 3 Naval vessels (not to mention 1 coast guard) was a large decision for our limited Navy. In effect those 3 ships represented 3/5 of our available Atlantic Fleet. You're welcome.

July 18th, 2006, 10:57 PM

[quote=Hotshot]
I'm impressed that you could foresee this crisis while the rest of the world could not!
" A very poor response"?
You obviously have an answer on how to evacuate 30,000 people on the other side of the planet on 3 days notice. PLEASE LET US IN ON YOUR BRILLIANT PLAN.
I empathize with the Family and their loss, everyone should. But I do not agree with them blaming our government for inaction. Canada could not have prevented these deaths. Though Israel likely fired the shell that killed these people they would not have done so if this series of events were not initiated by Hezbullah. This crisis was deliberatly and purposfully set in motion by Hezbullah.

July 19th, 2006, 12:40 PM

I never noticed this doozy. While small, the Canadian Navy is actually very well equipped. They are, without a doubt, the best off arm of the Canadian Forces. Our Halifax Class Guided Missile Frigates are superb, better than most Frigates our Allies put out (aside from the U.S. Oliver Hazard Perry Class). If you do a comparison between the British Type 22 and 23 Frigates and Halifax Class Frigates, it's no contest. A major problem with Royal Navy Frigates is their very LIMITED anti-air capability. They're armed with Seawolves, very short-range weapons. The Canadian Navy Frigates are armed with Evolved Sea Sparrows (ESSM) anti-air missiles. The seawolf has a range of 10km while the ESSM has a range of 60kms. The seawolf has a warhead of 14kg while the ESSM has a 40kg warhead. Lastly the seawolf cannot be used to target surface vessels, the ESSM can, thereby multiplying the effectivness of the host vessel. Even the Royal Navy's Type 42 Air Defence Destroyers are in a sub-class compared to the Canadian Iroquois Class. The Type 42 use Seadarts to defend task groups whilst the Iroquois Class use the MK41 VLS. The Seadart has a maximum range of 30 nautical miles while the MK41 VLS tops out at 125 nautical miles, making it easy for Iroquois Class to engage hostile air threats before they can launch against a Canadian surface task group. The United States, France, New Zealand, and Australia also make widespread use of the MK41 VLS. To deem the Canadian Navy as "leaky" is something of a misnomer. We have efficient and DEADLY warships, just not enough of them.

July 19th, 2006, 01:11 PM

You made my point - thank you, "You're welcome." Still embarrassing.

Uncle

July 19th, 2006, 01:17 PM

Embarrassing in YOUR opinion. The fact we sent any ships at all should mean something, especially when we deployed vessels we couldn't really spare.

July 19th, 2006, 08:26 PM

Hey Hotshot, Still waiting for you brilliant plan....