Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I'm torn when it comes to what Canada should do regarding submarines, one of the biggest considerations will be on arctic & ice operations. Are modern SSK's effective in this environment?

To me SSN's have such a clear advantage here that it would seem to be a waste to spend so much capital on a fleet of SSK's (Obviously in a perfect world we would go ahead and acquire a fleet of SSN's but we all know the odds of that ever happening are nearly impossible). So what then? with SSK's we'd pretty much be limited to monitoring entrances and exists of these sea-lanes below the ice but we wouldn't be able to follow any foreign SSN's that are sailing on through in any meaningful way - even with AIP.

Instead of buying a fleet of ~8 SSK's perhaps we'd get more value in keeping a smaller fleet (4-5 subs) and investing the remainder in acoustical surveillance (SOSUS) systems and P-8's?
Subs in JMSDF service have a reputation for being able to dive and engage nuke boats at depth. RAN subs similarly have reputations for being able to operate im enviros usually considered nuke boat territory. AIP is IMO more applicable to littoral ops, as it can allow lurking in an area with a minimal indiscretion rate. It does not provide for high power output, which is something which seems useful vs. nuke boats operating at depth.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I'm not going to get political and say it is the current Governments fault, it's 'both' sides of Canadian politics that can share the blame, and until that situation changes, well unfortunately we will continue to see the demise of the RCN as it once.
Pollies perform to get re-elected, regardless of political stripe. The root cause of our disgraceful defence situation is our pathetic electorate which doesn't care about defence. Until this changes, or massive external pressure from our allies is applied, I see <1% of GDP forever. That amount doesn't get us 15 new surface combatants or much of anything else.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In regards to amphibious force it is absolute necessary for Canada to have one. Not so much from kinetic perspective (although the need is still there), but as a HADR/ aid to civil power it is a must have need. For example west coast is just waiting for the "big one" earthquake to occur. Yet the west coast is isolated in terms of road access (one big earthquake and the Rocky Mountain road passes are shut-down), while Vancouver International Airport is right on the coast (will likely be shut-down during a massive quake/ after effects), and all active military units that might be able to respond on the west coast are based on Vancouver Island; with no meaningful air lift and absolute no organic sea lift. If only for this possible HADR response on the west-coast Canada needs an amphibious force imho.
I'll just speak to the Vancouver island and adjacent British Columbia coast natural hazards issue. There have been some significant earthquakes generated in the region, including Alaska, that have caused significant damage on shore but also have generated destructive tsunami. The last significant one was the 1964 Alaskan quake.

A natural hazard is an unwanted negative natural event system interaction with a human use system. Assessing how these natural hazards impact upon human use systems can sometimes be quite problematic especially if the return period (how often and the time period between events), magnitudes and impacts etc., are unknown because of a lack of data. We have to look at a history of many thousands of years, preferably many tens and / or hundreds of thousands of years, trying to find a pattern. That data we obtain mostly from the geologic record and latterly from the human historical record. With that data it is then possible to assess what natural hazards are likely to impact a given geographical area. The reliability of the assessment is dependent upon the quality and quantity of the data obtained.

The western coasts of Canada, plus the US states of Oregon, Washington and Alaska are all subject to three major geologic hazards because of their location on the Pacific Ring of Fire. These hazards are earthquakes, volcanism and tsunami. The earthquakes and volcanism are a direct result of the plate boundary between the Pacific tectonic plate and the North American tectonic plates. The tsunami hazard is from tsunami generated locally by earthquakes, volcanism, submarine landslides or far field generated tsunami, e.g., Japan, Russia etc.

Any one of those three hazards has the capability of severely disabling or destroying infrastructure, as us Kiwis are only to well aware. If the Vancouver ports, airports, road and rail infrastructure were severely compromised or destroyed because of a disaster, the only way to get aid in and refugees out maybe across the beach, the same as Kaikoura last November. The Canadian Govt could justify and sell an amphibious capability to the Canadian public on the HADR aspect quite well. It could be a politically astute move.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Any one of those three hazards has the capability of severely disabling or destroying infrastructure, as us Kiwis are only to well aware. If the Vancouver ports, airports, road and rail infrastructure were severely compromised or destroyed because of a disaster, the only way to get aid in and refugees out maybe across the beach
Certainly a major quake could cause immense damage to the three main population areas in BC, Victoria, Vancouver, and the lower Fraser Valley. While an amphibious capability would be beneficial for Victoria, it would be minimally useful for the mainland. It is unlikely that road and rail access would be blocked from both the eastern Canada and the US south. Abbotsford airport up the Fraser Valley is only about 50 km from the coast and their are numerous airports in Washington State which are away from the coast.

The Canadian Govt could justify and sell an amphibious capability to the Canadian public on the HADR aspect quite well. It could be a politically astute move.
LHDs have zero chance. Perhaps some kind of large multi-purpose vessel with roll-on roll-off capability for HADR missions could be managed but positioning the ship on the vulnerable West coast could be a hard sell in Eastern Canada. Hurricane relief missions from Halifax would be more frequent IMO which means a ship on each coast. That 1.5-2 billion dollars, money which I am sure the RCN would rather see spent on fighting ships.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Certainly a major quake could cause immense damage to the three main population areas in BC, Victoria, Vancouver, and the lower Fraser Valley. While an amphibious capability would be beneficial for Victoria, it would be minimally useful for the mainland. It is unlikely that road and rail access would be blocked from both the eastern Canada and the US south. Abbotsford airport up the Fraser Valley is only about 50 km from the coast and their are numerous airports in Washington State which are away from the coast.



LHDs have zero chance. Perhaps some kind of large multi-purpose vessel with roll-on roll-off capability for HADR missions could be managed but positioning the ship on the vulnerable West coast could be a hard sell in Eastern Canada. Hurricane relief missions from Halifax would be more frequent IMO which means a ship on each coast. That 1.5-2 billion dollars, money which I am sure the RCN would rather see spent on fighting ships.
Isn't Canada leading the Latvian NATO battle group? Seeing off Russia?

Would seem that Canada might struggle with that commitment and that the commitment is light now but could be worked up.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Isn't Canada leading the Latvian NATO battle group? Seeing off Russia?

Would seem that Canada might struggle with that commitment and that the commitment is light now but could be worked up.
Canada is sending light armoured vehicles and 450 troops to Latvia. It would be better upgrade this commitment somewhat and forget about Mali.

Matthew Fisher: Canada’s forces deployed in Latvia to include ‘cyber warriors’ to counter Russians | National Post
 

J_Can

Member
LHDs have zero chance. Perhaps some kind of large multi-purpose vessel with roll-on roll-off capability for HADR missions could be managed but positioning the ship on the vulnerable West coast could be a hard sell in Eastern Canada. Hurricane relief missions from Halifax would be more frequent IMO which means a ship on each coast. That 1.5-2 billion dollars, money which I am sure the RCN would rather see spent on fighting ships.
I know realistic the RCN would much prefer having the fighting arm of their fleet to be well funded (not that I do not); however is it really necessary for us to have such a large surface fleet? I just do not see a realistic threat that would require Canada to maintain such a large fleet right now (15 front-line combatant hulls). The Red Fleet will not be surging through the Atlantic any time soon. Yes the Russian Northern Fleet is a problem but they would first have to get through the RN, the Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and French navies first before we would have to worry about it. This is not even including the American Navy.

It just seems to me in the Atlantic besides daily sovereignty needs (1-2 FFGH/ AOPV) or wartime contingencies needs (say a full task group 1 AOR, 4 FFGH, and possible 1 SSK), all naval movements would appear to be already discretionary by the bean counters. In the Pacific literally outside of domestic sovereignty and the occasional discretionary naval activity there is literal no major naval threat to Canada (there is China and Russia but then there is the American Navy). Yes we should support our allies to the fullest extent, but as far I can tell outside the occasional supportive word from the government there is very little real support our allies in the Pacific. Yes we should pull our weight, but even still the bean counters see it differently and it appears they are not willing to add more money into the pot.

Would it not then make more sense to commit the RCN to a more broad skill set (such as amphibious ops) , even if it means the surface fleet loses out on some combatants. I rather have say three to four hulls of the Damen Crossover or ________, with ten front-line surface combatants (6 Atlantic, 4 Pacific) then just 12 or 15 front line combatants. If only because it further increase the amount of tools the RCN "adds to the chest" that allows a greater range of option for the Canadian policy maker, even under such bare bones budgets.

This is just my opinion so please understand I do not mean any insult, I just want to find a way to get the best results from a lacklustre defence budget.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I know realistic the RCN would much prefer having the fighting arm of their fleet to be well funded (not that I do not); however is it really necessary for us to have such a large surface fleet? I just do not see a realistic threat that would require Canada to maintain such a large fleet right now (15 front-line combatant hulls). The Red Fleet will not be surging through the Atlantic any time soon. Yes the Russian Northern Fleet is a problem but they would first have to get through the RN, the Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and French navies first before we would have to worry about it. This is not even including the American Navy.

It just seems to me in the Atlantic besides daily sovereignty needs (1-2 FFGH/ AOPV) or wartime contingencies needs (say a full task group 1 AOR, 4 FFGH, and possible 1 SSK), all naval movements would appear to be already discretionary by the bean counters. In the Pacific literally outside of domestic sovereignty and the occasional discretionary naval activity there is literal no major naval threat to Canada (there is China and Russia but then there is the American Navy). Yes we should support our allies to the fullest extent, but as far I can tell outside the occasional supportive word from the government there is very little real support our allies in the Pacific. Yes we should pull our weight, but even still the bean counters see it differently and it appears they are not willing to add more money into the pot.

Would it not then make more sense to commit the RCN to a more broad skill set (such as amphibious ops) , even if it means the surface fleet loses out on some combatants. I rather have say three to four hulls of the Damen Crossover or ________, with ten front-line surface combatants (6 Atlantic, 4 Pacific) then just 12 or 15 front line combatants. If only because it further increase the amount of tools the RCN "adds to the chest" that allows a greater range of option for the Canadian policy maker, even under such bare bones budgets.

This is just my opinion so please understand I do not mean any insult, I just want to find a way to get the best results from a lacklustre defence budget.
A point you seem to keep missing is that a fleet of 15 frigates/destroyers is not especially large. Particularly when you factor in the maritime area and approaches to Canada, and then include maintenance and training cycles in addition to the operational cycles.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
This is just my opinion so please understand I do not mean any insult, I just want to find a way to get the best results from a lacklustre defence budget.
Just one thing i would like to ask. How reliant is Canada on Sea trade out of Asia both in Imports & exports? With the growing tensions in the South China Sea area the RCN may be asked in the future to help keep these sea lanes open and that is going to rely on a strong Frigate/Destroyer Force.
Here in Australia we have a massive reliance on the Sea Lanes into Asia staying open. With either a lot of choke points via the direct route or a much longer route out into the Pacific Ocean. It's one of the things that is driving Australia towards a much larger Sub fleet and more capable Frigates.
You may not have the huge Soviet navy coming through the Greenland-UK gap anymore, but you may be faced with your Trade Routes being closed by a conflict in the South China Sea.
 

protoplasm

Active Member
I know realistic the RCN would much prefer having the fighting arm of their fleet to be well funded (not that I do not); however is it really necessary for us to have such a large surface fleet? I just do not see a realistic threat that would require Canada to maintain such a large fleet right now (15 front-line combatant hulls). The Red Fleet will not be surging through the Atlantic any time soon. Yes the Russian Northern Fleet is a problem but they would first have to get through the RN, the Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and French navies first before we would have to worry about it. This is not even including the American Navy.

It just seems to me in the Atlantic besides daily sovereignty needs (1-2 FFGH/ AOPV) or wartime contingencies needs (say a full task group 1 AOR, 4 FFGH, and possible 1 SSK), all naval movements would appear to be already discretionary by the bean counters. In the Pacific literally outside of domestic sovereignty and the occasional discretionary naval activity there is literal no major naval threat to Canada (there is China and Russia but then there is the American Navy). Yes we should support our allies to the fullest extent, but as far I can tell outside the occasional supportive word from the government there is very little real support our allies in the Pacific. Yes we should pull our weight, but even still the bean counters see it differently and it appears they are not willing to add more money into the pot.

Would it not then make more sense to commit the RCN to a more broad skill set (such as amphibious ops) , even if it means the surface fleet loses out on some combatants. I rather have say three to four hulls of the Damen Crossover or ________, with ten front-line surface combatants (6 Atlantic, 4 Pacific) then just 12 or 15 front line combatants. If only because it further increase the amount of tools the RCN "adds to the chest" that allows a greater range of option for the Canadian policy maker, even under such bare bones budgets.

This is just my opinion so please understand I do not mean any insult, I just want to find a way to get the best results from a lacklustre defence budget.
If you want 2 FFGH to be on the Atlantic ready to go the rule of 3 says you need 6 to cater for training and maintenance. If the same is needed on the west coast you need 6 there as well. I just defined a fleet of 12 boats so that 2, just 2, are available on each coast all of the time. 12 is not a big fleet, it is the absolute minimum to maintain 2 main fleet units on task on each coast. The fact that the Canadian political climate/bean counters will not support the bare minimum required is the issue.
 

Boatteacher

Active Member
The Red Fleet will not be surging through the Atlantic any time soon. Yes the Russian Northern Fleet is a problem but they would first have to get through the RN, the Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and French navies first before we would have to worry about it. This is not even including the American Navy.

.
It seems to me that Russia and Canada will soon find themselves in direct competition in the Arctic (if they aren't already) and no other country stands in their way in that area. So saying that other countries stand in their way is not really thinking about the possibilities (let alone the lack of collective spirit in such an approach)

Any real competition in that area could soon spread into the Northern Pacific - sovereignty breeches and the like - as Russia takes advantage of the lack of Canadian assets to show they can't cover all bases sufficiently.

Really, with the length of Canadian coastline and its exposure to developing geo-political events I'm surprised the electorate is so complacent.
 

J_Can

Member
It seems to me that Russia and Canada will soon find themselves in direct competition in the Arctic (if they aren't already) and no other country stands in their way in that area. So saying that other countries stand in their way is not really thinking about the possibilities (let alone the lack of collective spirit in such an approach)

Any real competition in that area could soon spread into the Northern Pacific - sovereignty breeches and the like - as Russia takes advantage of the lack of Canadian assets to show they can't cover all bases sufficiently.

Really, with the length of Canadian coastline and its exposure to developing geo-political events I'm surprised the electorate is so complacent.
There complacent because "the good times will never end" unfortunately in their (the electorate and political class) minds. In regards to the Northern Pacific and Canada elector apathy towards collective spirit I totally agree.

However I don't see how there would be any direct military confrontation in the High North. I have done training up there twice, it can get so cold if you touch metal with bare skin you will get immediate frost bite. Weapons stop working, fuel loses such viscosity that generators won't work. Everything has to be flown or tracked in. Even under the most dire climate models the High North will still be very unpleasant. Your taking minus 20 in summer and negative 40 in winter, and summer only last about 4 months there. Taking all that into account and I can't personal see a massive shooting war occurring. Missile/ air strikes or the occasional sub sure, fleet actions I just do not see it. Even ice free is not ice free, it just means the average ice strengthened ship will be able navigate without ice breaker support in the summer. In the winter they will still need polar 2 or 3 ice breakers.
 

J_Can

Member
Just one thing i would like to ask. How reliant is Canada on Sea trade out of Asia both in Imports & exports? With the growing tensions in the South China Sea area the RCN may be asked in the future to help keep these sea lanes open and that is going to rely on a strong Frigate/Destroyer Force.
Here in Australia we have a massive reliance on the Sea Lanes into Asia staying open. With either a lot of choke points via the direct route or a much longer route out into the Pacific Ocean. It's one of the things that is driving Australia towards a much larger Sub fleet and more capable Frigates.
You may not have the huge Soviet navy coming through the Greenland-UK gap anymore, but you may be faced with your Trade Routes being closed by a conflict in the South China Sea.
In short not a lot, something like 80 to 85 percent of our trade is through the USA. The vast majority oils flows from the Mid East westwards transiting either the Suez or Cape Horn, the remainder is produced here. Foodstuff is practically all North American (Canada, America, Mexico collectively) outside of speciality goods. Most trade through the Pacific/ Indian Oceans are commercial and household goods.

Also regards to everyone else much appreciated insight, I guess I was taking everyone's commentary from the wrong angle. Its not there is a disagreement with idea the RCN needs more "tools", just there needs to a baseline capability that has to be provided for at all costs (funding wise) and then everything else comes.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
A point you seem to keep missing is that a fleet of 15 frigates/destroyers is not especially large. Particularly when you factor in the maritime area and approaches to Canada, and then include maintenance and training cycles in addition to the operational cycles.
Indeed, and lets not forget the rule of three and Canada's treaty obligations. Ships will be deployed overseas, some will be protecting Canada, and others will be in maintenance. A fleet of 15 surface combatants is a bare minimum, insufficient really.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Just one thing i would like to ask. How reliant is Canada on Sea trade out of Asia both in Imports & exports? With the growing tensions in the South China Sea area the RCN may be asked in the future to help keep these sea lanes open and that is going to rely on a strong Frigate/Destroyer Force.
Canada's trade with Asia is much too low because of our over reliance on US/Mexico trade. It is a huge missed opportunity. If we were developing trade relations properly in Asia, absolutely a more robust RCN would be needed.


Here in Australia we have a massive reliance on the Sea Lanes into Asia staying open. It's one of the things that is driving Australia towards a much larger Sub fleet and more capable Frigates.
You may not have the huge Soviet navy coming through the Greenland-UK gap anymore, but you may be faced with your Trade Routes being closed by a conflict in the South China Sea.
Couldn't agree more.:)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Really, with the length of Canadian coastline and its exposure to developing geo-political events I'm surprised the electorate is so complacent.
Two points, one the complacency comes from being next to a superpower. Two, if you have a strong enough stomach, read some Canadian media defence articles and then the read comments from our electorate on those articles. It will be very apparent how FU this country really is.:flaming
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
There complacent because "the good times will never end" unfortunately in their (the electorate and political class) minds. In regards to the Northern Pacific and Canada elector apathy towards collective spirit I totally agree.
Me too.

However I don't see how there would be any direct military confrontation in the High North. I have done training up there twice, it can get so cold if you touch metal with bare skin you will get immediate frost bite. Weapons stop working, fuel loses such viscosity that generators won't work. Everything has to be flown or tracked in. Even under the most dire climate models the High North will still be very unpleasant.
All very true but that hasn't stopped the Russians from holding extensive exercises in the Arctic. They are expanding bases and introducing Arctic specific kit.


Even ice free is not ice free, it just means the average ice strengthened ship will be able navigate without ice breaker support in the summer. In the winter they will still need polar 2 or 3 ice breakers.
For now yes, but there worrying signs that polar melting could accelerate beyond current predications. An Arctic that is ice free for 5-8 months is a huge opportunity for resource starved or greedy competitors. With our minimal presence, the Canadian Arctic is up for grabs and it isn't only China and Russia (think south).
 

Delta204

Active Member
J_Can, I can understand your frustration but the reality is that unless the govt. significantly increases defense spending the RCN will NOT be acquiring the type of naval assets you are hoping for. The main piece of wisdom I've been able to learn from this forum is that you cannot make a procurement wish list without fully understanding the established CONOPS - and what gives you the most value per dollar to meet these requirements.

The Halifax class frigates I would argue are the most versatile, flexible and valuable military asset that the entire CAF possess. They can be deployed anywhere in the world, in virtually any naval theatre; they can go from hunting pirates off the coast of Africa to staring down the Russians in the Baltic in a matter of a few days (which they did not too long ago!); they have the most global reach of any element of the CAF - working/visiting with allies (and non-allies) in every single continent. They are world class ASW vessels which goes beyond just hardware and builds off of skills the RCN has taken many years (decades) to develop. They operate seamlessly with the USN including their CSG's- perhaps better than anyone else. And as others have pointed out all of these abilities are only possible if there are sufficient numbers available to meet domestic and global commitments.

On paper it might be tempting to cut frigate numbers in order to go out and buy some shiny new toys; but in reality this would require a complete and fundamental change to the CONOPS of the RCN. All of this would be for what is essentially a boutique naval capability. The complexity and expense of this type of capability probably comes close to that of fixed wing carrier operations!
 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
J_Can, while at the moment the Russian navy isn't that great of a threat you can't look at today and now and make that assessment, You need to look at the future and guesstimate what they could become while also allowing for any falling out with current allies or current allies becoming less powerful.

On the topic of pacific trade through the Vancouver port authority trade isn't thatsmall with 2016 having 3,105 foreign ship's visit picking up or dropping off 135,538,055 tons of cargo 81% of which was Bulk and Break bulk cargo, And based off of 2014 figures (slightly more traded that year but inflation to account for) would be worth roughly $187 billion up from $43 billion in 2004 and it's growing. The Pacific is no side note but a key area of concern that should have appropriate resources put towards.
 
Top