Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Fedup]

Depending on how fast Australia moves in acquiring new replenishment ships the RCN may be able to lease/buy one or both of our current one's. Sure they showing there age but apparently by Canada's standard's (And I thought Australia's government and military brass was bad) they still have quite a bit of life in them...

A Canadian politician would consider your existing ships as demo models in virtually show-room condition.

 

[vonnoobie]

I am going off topic a little, but there has been a suggestion that Canada does not spend enough on defence. I would argue that Canada has about the safest geographical security of any nation in the world. The only country that could invade it is the US, and they are not going to. They tried something in 1812, but since then the two countries seem content for each to be sovereign

If Canada was to go from double its expenditure from 1 percent GDP to 2 percent GDP on defence, then over a decade or so, that is hundreds of billions of dollars spent on guns, ships and bombs. However it also means hundred of billions of dollars cut from roads, hospitals, tax cuts, schools, universities, health care, disability pensioners, safer airports etc etc.

Other nations are different to Canada, and do not have the geographic advantages that Canada has. Say you pick some other nations starting the C, Columbia, Chile, Croatia, Congo (DR), Chad. In each case these nations have neighbours with whom hostilities with land neighbors though not likely cant be ruled out.

(Columbia:Venezuela, Chile:Argentina, Croatia:Serbia, DRC:Rwanda-Uganda-Angola, Chad:civil war-Sudan-Dharfur).

So if Canada doubled its defence spending what would it spend its money on. It could confront China in the western pacific, it could mess about in the middle east. I think the idea of Russian paratroopers flying over the north pole and taking one of those remote, barren islands up the top there is crazy. Russia has heaps of land to develop its natural resources, it is not overly short of tundra.

As to building up its submarine force to detect fishing vessels. I would argue detection could be done for a fraction of the price by fixed winged aircraft

Then we get into the morality bit, does Canada have an obligation to help out the west around the world. Canada did its bit in WW1, WW2 and Korea. Maybe it takes the view that messing about in Libya or Iraq is none of its business. Although many may dislike this idea of Canada not helping out, they are a sovereign nation and can choose to do as they please.

Next take a hypothetical idea. Just say that Canada was controlled by a crazy dictator like Kim Jong Il, and that individual had nuclear weapons. The amount that the US would have to spend to secure its northern border would be astronomical. At the moment the US spends zero, because Canada is no threat. How many nations can get away with spending zero protecting thousands of miles of their land border? The money saved by the US is huge

Even if we scale back the hypothetical and reduce it to an unresolved border dispute. The amount that the US and Canada would both have to spend to ensure that small area of land stayed secure would be very high.

Canada knows that its geographic situation is extremely secure. Should it spend an extra 20 billion dollars a year (double spending) so that it can mess about in Africa, the middle east, Afghanistan etc? Maybe they have just decided to keep out of all that. An individual may not agree with their decision, may not like their decision, but in the end, its really up to them. If the Canadian public wanted more spent on the military they could rally in the streets and start petitions. I guess Canada could have joined the intervention in Libya and Iraq, but how did that end up, I would argue so-so. The money saved could be spent of rebuilding the infrastructure of very poor nations.

I do realise that in decades to come there may be stressors relating to trade routes relating to China and Asia, that could be a threat to Canada's trade security. It seems Canada has decided to simply keep out of all that. Does Canada have a moral obligation to protect Vietnam's sovereignty against Chinese incursions? Or maybe they feel its is best to keep out of all that. In my view an argument can be made either way.

My point is that Canada is different, the nearest potential threat is a 1500 miles away over the north pole, and I think Russians claiming sovereignty over those northern islands as exceptionally remote

Other countries, Australia included have different geographical issues and are less secure. I doubt there is a nation on earth as secure as Canada, (maybe Iceland or New Zealand because nobody cares massively about them). Many may dislike the idea that Canada does not spend a lot on defence, but I would argue that is much better than if they were a hostile or difficult neighbour.

I know others on this forum may not like what I have said, if u choose to respond, pls direct ur comment to the arguments I made rather than me personally

Mentioned in the RAN thread, In regard's to Canada are her military budget, 1% is more then adequate in my opinion based on her circumstances that very few nation's have the luxury of.

No threatening nation is really within range to attack her so having a large air force or navy is pretty pointless, Actually had me thinking is 15 surface combatant's really force needed by the RCN? I'd imagine the RCN could get away with a fleet half that of what the RAN has planned and perhaps a few more OPV's.

 

[Goknub]

Much of the arguments for a low Canadian defence budget can also be made for Australia and most of Western Europe.

Realistically, Australia faces little threat from any of its neighbours. The single squadron of Super Hornets would be enough deterrence considering the distances involved.

This is not trying to derail the Canadian focus but more to point out that high (2%) military spending is a choice Western nations make in order to contribute to the strength of the broader Western world. It is not due to the immediate level of threat. The Americans are making plenty of noise about their displeasure of doing all the heavy lifting.

I see the arguments for and against related to how one sees the post-Cold War world. If it's the "End of History" then there is little need for more than 1%. If it's the "Clash of Civilisations" then 2% is needed to ensure the West maintains it's present position.

 

[vonnoobie]

Much of the arguments for a low Canadian defence budget can also be made for Australia and most of Western Europe.

Realistically, Australia faces little threat from any of its neighbours. The single squadron of Super Hornets would be enough deterrence considering the distances involved.

This is not trying to derail the Canadian focus but more to point out that high (2%) military spending is a choice Western nations make in order to contribute to the strength of the broader Western world. It is not due to the immediate level of threat. The Americans are making plenty of noise about their displeasure of doing all the heavy lifting.

I see the arguments for and against related to how one sees the post-Cold War world. If it's the "End of History" then there is little need for more than 1%. If it's the "Clash of Civilisations" then 2% is needed to ensure the West maintains it's present position.

In regard's to Australia, While for the time being our defense budget is more then large enough, Going into the future for us it will need to be seriously looked at. China is already looking outwards and some what aggressively while Indonesia in a few decades will have an economy larger then Australia's. Can't exactly say Australia is in a similar situation to Canada when we are in the region with the fastest growing number of submarines world wide among other military asset's.

 

[t68]

Mentioned in the RAN thread, In regard's to Canada are her military budget, 1% is more then adequate in my opinion based on her circumstances that very few nation's have the luxury of.

No threatening nation is really within range to attack her so having a large air force or navy is pretty pointless, Actually had me thinking is 15 surface combatant's really force needed by the RCN? I'd imagine the RCN could get away with a fleet half that of what the RAN has planned and perhaps a few more OPV's.

NATO membership is the cornerstone of Canadian security, granted they have the luxury of having the most powerful member as a neighbour. If anything it should be the incentive for a more expeditionary/ ASW focus martime nation they have to cross a large body of water to meet their treaty obligations.

While the UKUS agreement was extended to cover AUSCANNZUKUS it's a speacial relationship between all nations one which has grown to be more than a symbolic treaty for we can rely on one another in a time of need.

 

[Delta204]

The main post made by Peter is a pretty good assessment of Canada's unique geopolitical position. While some may say that Western Europe and Australia enjoy a similar situation vis-à-vis the USA, it's different for Canada. The US views their own security in a North American context - as Peter mentioned, if Canada is not secure then neither is mainland USA; if the Americans had to pick just one ally to defend in some future global conflict you could pretty much guarantee it would be Canada. If Canada were to disband it's armed forces tomorrow it would still be the 2nd most secure nation in the world behind only the USA from threat of foreign invasion (not that the current Canadian military would make much difference). The US would not tolerate Russian aggression (or any other country for that matter) towards Canada like it does in Eastern Europe - comparing the two situations is apples to oranges.


This is why in Canada defense spending is considered a luxury item by our politicians and when budgets need to be cut defense is usually one of the first and hardest to be hit. Canada does not have a military to keep it's border secure; the reason we fund a military is to be a good neighbour, to be an active participant in international relations and to make our token contribution to global security. So Peter is right, politicians would have a hard time trying to justify to the public why more tax dollars needed to be spent on something that at the end of the day is not necessary.

In light of this context in Canada we have to ask what makes most sense and what offers best value. I would agree with others here that a maritime naval focus is a good bet considering the fact that we are surrounded by 3 oceans and have a large coastline. Naval forces also seem to be useful in fulfilling our international partnerships and allow us to participate in operations all across the globe that can range in pirate hunting, ASW, naval blockades, securing international shipping routes (which is vital to the resource focused Canadian economy). The 15 planned surface combatants would allow Canada to continue to be able to meet these defense obligations and, in my opinion, should be given the highest priority in future defense spending. While 15 sounds like a high number you have to remember that this is basically split in two between the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and dropping below 15 limits our ability to have ships available on both coasts for deployment on a continual basis.

 

[Stampede]

A Canadian politician would consider your existing ships as demo models in virtually show-room condition.

Thanks John for the reply,

Looks like both Australia and Canada have a shared bad experience with naval helicopters. Hopefully now we are both on the right path at last.

Read a little about the North/West passage. There is some seriously big distances and not too friendly geography in that part of the world. How is this playing out with Canada's future fleet and whats the latest re sovereignty issues regarding right of passage between your country and its southern neigbour.
Thanks S

 

[John Fedup]

Thanks John for the reply,

Looks like both Australia and Canada have a shared bad experience with naval helicopters. Hopefully now we are both on the right path at last.

Read a little about the North/West passage. There is some seriously big distances and not too friendly geography in that part of the world. How is this playing out with Canada's future fleet and whats the latest re sovereignty issues regarding right of passage between your country and its southern neigbour.
Thanks S

It remains to be seen how our new Cyclones work out. The first six units don't meet the required tender specifications and will be upgraded later when the fully compliant versions start to arrive. Given Sikorsky's performance to date, I have my doubts. The EH101 made more sense but politics would not allow this.

A contract has been awarded for 5 Arctic patrol vessels but for serious ice conditions, they will need heavy icebreaker support. The U.S. considers the Northwest passage as an open waterway, Canada disagrees. The work around to this dispute is the U.S. informs Canada when a passage is to be made and Canada oks the passage which may or my not include a Canadian escort vessel. For now the Northwest passage is not commercially viable and Canada and the U.S. lack enough ice breakers for any serious commercial traffic. Thus insurance costs would be prohibitive.

 

[John Fedup]

Much of the arguments for a low Canadian defence budget can also be made for Australia and most of Western Europe.

Realistically, Australia faces little threat from any of its neighbours. The single squadron of Super Hornets would be enough deterrence considering the distances involved.

This is not trying to derail the Canadian focus but more to point out that high (2%) military spending is a choice Western nations make in order to contribute to the strength of the broader Western world. It is not due to the immediate level of threat. The Americans are making plenty of noise about their displeasure of doing all the heavy lifting.



I see the arguments for and against related to how one sees the post-Cold War world. If it's the "End of History" then there is little need for more than 1%. If it's the "Clash of Civilisations" then 2% is needed to ensure the West maintains it's present position.

The likely "clash" is one reason why 1.5-2.0% is necessary.

 

[John Fedup]

Here's a link about fast tracking new icebreakers for the US. I am sure they will have 2-3 before steel is cut for the CCG's John D. Diefenbaker.

Time to fast-track construction of icebreakers, says President Obama | Ottawa Citizen

 

[walter]

well here's an idea(don't know if it's possible,but just a thought),maybe it would be possible to lease the "karel"(since both our navies are strapped for money)and maybe get in the deal some sort of training on "our" zevens(i'm not an expert on whether this would be possible,politically)

Hopefully when the "brass" see these very modern ships(and sexy aswell,yes i'm dutch)they would be temted to go for these as possible replacements instead of pourring money into these"classics"(nicely said)I know this comes too late decisions being made,can't help but trying being a "true" dutchy(commerce)

Sad to see most of the navies of the western world being "sliced and diced"as a result of cuts,no interest,and to be fair (as said)lazyness(thinking our big friends will do the job for us)


sorry for any mistakes,english not being my native tongue.

gr,walter

 

[John Fedup]

well here's an idea(don't know if it's possible,but just a thought),maybe it would be possible to lease the "karel"(since both our navies are strapped for money)and maybe get in the deal some sort of training on "our" zevens(i'm not an expert on whether this would be possible,politically)

Hopefully when the "brass" see these very modern ships(and sexy aswell,yes i'm dutch)they would be temted to go for these as possible replacements instead of pourring money into these"classics"(nicely said)I know this comes too late decisions being made,can't help but trying being a "true" dutchy(commerce)

Sad to see most of the navies of the western world being "sliced and diced"as a result of cuts,no interest,and to be fair (as said)lazyness(thinking our big friends will do the job for us)


sorry for any mistakes,english not being my native tongue.

gr,walter

I believe at some point your government considered selling the Karel Doorman as its completion approached due to budget concerns but changed its mind, too bad as it would have been a good and timely acquisition for the RCN. The RCN is leasing a Chilean supply ship for Pacific operations and there may be a temporary charter from Spain for Atlantic operations. The "Karel" would be an excellent alternative charter. Our Berlin AORs won't be delivered until 2020 at the earliest.

 

[John Fedup]

The Ottawa citizen is reporting that some serious talks were underway about Canada acquiring the two Mistrals from France that were intended for Russia. The election here put the talks on hold and the French hadn't completed their refund agreement with Russia at the time. Since then, France has the green light to sell the ships and new potential buyers have lined up and they all can move faster than Canada on procurement matters. Just as well, these ships will likely have all sorts of QC issues and Canada does not have the resources at the moment to perform all the modifications that would be required. Better to wait, access how such ships would fit into RCN CONOPS and then do what Australia did, buy JC class ships. This would likely cost less in the long run as well.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...-ships-initiative-on-hold-because-of-election

 

[ngatimozart]

The Ottawa citizen is reporting that some serious talks were underway about Canada acquiring the two Mistrals from France that were intended for Russia. The election here put the talks on hold and the French hadn't completed their refund agreement with Russia at the time. Since then, France has the green light to sell the ships and new potential buyers have lined up and they all can move faster than Canada on procurement matters. Just as well, these ships will likely have all sorts of QC issues and Canada does not have the resources at the moment to perform all the modifications that would be required. Better to wait, access how such ships would fit into RCN CONOPS and then do what Australia did, buy JC class ships. This would likely cost less in the long run as well.
Canada was actively pursuing possible purchase of Mistral-class ships – initiative on hold because of election | Ottawa Citizen

The Mistrals have gone to Egypt, funded by Saudi Arabia. No they would've caused to many issues for the RCN. Better to buy ships built for Canadian CONOPS.

 

[John Fedup]

The Ottawa Citizen is reporting that the 26 billion set aside for the future Canadian surface combatant ships will likely result in only 11 ships being built instead of the planned 15-16 ships. Given the decline in the Canadian dollar and inflation during the 5-6 years prior to the actual program start this is hardly surprising. The article mentions that some in the RCN believe as few as 8 ships with be built.

Number of Canadian Surface Combatants could be as low as 11, confirms Jason Kenney | Ottawa Citizen

 

[40 deg south]

Canada turns to Asterix for stop gap at-sea support - IHS Jane's 360

Jane's briefly covers the proposed conversion of a container ship to a temporary AOR. The economics are, um, uniquely Canadian. Buy a container ship for CAD 20 million, then spend CAD 250-300 million converting it into something entirely different.

There isn't a date for expected entry into service, but presumably around 2017?

If you approached one of the big Korean yards with the above cash and asked how soon they could give you a brand new AOR, I wonder what the response would be?

 

[John Fedup]

Canada turns to Asterix for stop gap at-sea support - IHS Jane's 360

Jane's briefly covers the proposed conversion of a container ship to a temporary AOR. The economics are, um, uniquely Canadian. Buy a container ship for CAD 20 million, then spend CAD 250-300 million converting it into something entirely different.

There isn't a date for expected entry into service, but presumably around 2017?

If you approached one of the big Korean yards with the above cash and asked how soon they could give you a brand new AOR, I wonder what the response would be?

"Really frigging quick" would be my guess! The whole JSS-AOR saga is so pathetic. As you may know, SeaSpan in Vancouver will build two Berlin class AORs, the first of which won't be floating until 2020 at the earliest. Cost will be damn close to what the UK is building 4 Tide class AORs for and they will be built faster. Part of this money would better spent on continuing leasing AORs from Spain and Chile until the Berlins arrive.

This stop gap conversion job by Davie is nothing but a Quebec vote grab. Davie was not considered for the National ship program because they were bankrupt at the time. One really has to wonder how high you can pile up BS before the pile falls over.

 

[harryriedl]

Canada turns to Asterix for stop gap at-sea support - IHS Jane's 360

Jane's briefly covers the proposed conversion of a container ship to a temporary AOR. The economics are, um, uniquely Canadian. Buy a container ship for CAD 20 million, then spend CAD 250-300 million converting it into something entirely different.

There isn't a date for expected entry into service, but presumably around 2017?

If you approached one of the big Korean yards with the above cash and asked how soon they could give you a brand new AOR, I wonder what the response would be?

Damn thats expensive for a stop gap(as its Canadian procurement I wonder how long the stop gap will have to last). Why aren't they buying a tanker as their is a huge glut of them on shipping market anyway so they are cheap and available and can can be converted to basic AOR duties in days(Astern fuelling even quicker)

 

[StingrayOZ]

Damn thats expensive for a stop gap(as its Canadian procurement I wonder how long the stop gap will have to last). Why aren't they buying a tanker as their is a huge glut of them on shipping market anyway so they are cheap and available and can can be converted to basic AOR duties in days(Astern fuelling even quicker)

AOR is I think only one role of the JSS. They also want it to be able to resupply dry stores and sealift the Canadian Army and use it as a command centre.

I think with JSS they are a victim of too much multi rolling. They could grab a Container ship (or some sort of lease arrangement on one) and a tanker and get a very easy solution. This would free up funds for surface combatants and the Amphibious ship (which they wanted Largs Bay for). It would be better for the Canadian ship building industry imo too.

JSS has been all the color and movement in Canadian procurement, but there's not much of a fleet left to resupply.

Comparing Australia and Canada defence paths is very interesting. Australia had an event that meant it stopped dicking around with polishing turds and went out and got some very serious hardware. 2 first class LHD's, Largs, 3 AWD and is coming up with some sort of path for the frigate replacements and a serious sub project. There are issues, but there is progress.

Canada on the other hand has been gridlocked by indecisiveness, capability growth and investing in money pits and polishing turds to try and save money. Spending ~$400 m on a temporary solution seems wasteful. They would have been better to lease two commercial ships and put that money to a proper amphib.

 

[Goknub]

The Canadian military may find that "stop gap" is the only way they can get needed capabilities delivered. If they are smart a series of other "stop gap" decisions could work to their advantage.