Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Fedup]

Asia is indeed becoming more important for Canada however, we are in a formalized military alliance with NATO and have legitimate/larger scale commitments there than we have in the Pacific. We have fundamentally limited resources and when it comes down to cold hard logic, we have to maintain our relationship with NATO as that is where a great deal of value comes from for Canada. [/QUOTE}

Not objecting but focus needs to be monitored as Asia is on the up-swing, Europe hopefully as well but.....

If the reliability of the Panama Canal is being seriously discussed for Canadian military use, we have far more serious issues at stake than simply moving warships from coast to coast. [/QUOTE}
No argument there

I don't tend to entertain that sort of talk as its fundamentally out of the scope of reality

Given recent events, the Ukraine invasion, Trump's trashing of the global trade order along with his threats to Greenland and Canadian sovereignty plus the Iranian war...not sure about " your out of the scope of reality comment".

We aren't sending frontline combatants out to many of these theatres like Africa, it is second line non-combatants like the AOPS or MCDV's doing these roles.

My view is AOPS and/MCDVs in Africa shouldn't be a RCN mission

 

[CorvetteCrunch]

Given recent events, the Ukraine invasion, Trump's trashing of the global trade order along with his threats to Greenland and Canadian sovereignty plus the Iranian war...not sure about " your out of the scope of reality comment".

I don't take any kind of perceived future threat of Canada being cutoff from the Panama Canal outside of its damaging/blocking by a hostile foreign power in a war as especially likely or serious to consider. It would be such a substantial destruction of our relationship that I don't think it would be recoverable, as the precedent set is beyond awful. Hence my comments about it being "out of the scope of reality", aka I don't view it as worthwhile to discuss otherwise we're far down a far deeper rabbit hole where basically anything is on the table.

If the canal isn't an option, the traditional route of transiting around South America is back on the table. It drastically slows the timeline for resource transfer over but it isn't exactly an insurmountable task.

My view is AOPS and/MCDVs in Africa shouldn't be a RCN mission

If we do not send AOPS and/or MCDV's to Africa, we are missing out on a number of different substantial benefits for the Navy. It is not within the mandate or jurisdiction of the Coast Guard to go operate on these sorts of missions far abroad, so we would not be participating at all without the Navy. Navy personnel requiring training, qualifications and sea time, deployments like PROJECTION to Africa allow us to get people within the force what they need alongside building working relations with regional/foreign nations and helping people in the process while we're there. We aren't always required to be in Europe or Asia, so it's worthwhile in my opinion to use our ships effectively abroad to the benefit of all. This theatre isn't vital so if something more important comes up at the time, canceling the deployment isn't the end of the world, but I also wouldn't write it off as a waste of time either.

 

[John Fedup]

I don't take any kind of perceived future threat of Canada being cutoff from the Panama Canal outside of its damaging/blocking by a hostile foreign power in a war as especially likely or serious to consider. It would be such a substantial destruction of our relationship that I don't think it would be recoverable, as the precedent set is beyond awful. Hence my comments about it being "out of the scope of reality", aka I don't view it as worthwhile to discuss otherwise we're far down a far deeper rabbit hole where basically anything is on the table.

If the canal isn't an option, the traditional route of transiting around South America is back on the table. It drastically slows the timeline for resource transfer over but it isn't exactly an insurmountable task.



If we do not send AOPS and/or MCDV's to Africa, we are missing out on a number of different substantial benefits for the Navy. It is not within the mandate or jurisdiction of the Coast Guard to go operate on these sorts of missions far abroad, so we would not be participating at all without the Navy. Navy personnel requiring training, qualifications and sea time, deployments like PROJECTION to Africa allow us to get people within the force what they need alongside building working relations with regional/foreign nations and helping people in the process while we're there. We aren't always required to be in Europe or Asia, so it's worthwhile in my opinion to use our ships effectively abroad to the benefit of all. This theatre isn't vital so if something more important comes up at the time, canceling the deployment isn't the end of the world, but I also wouldn't write it off as a waste of time either.

Sea time around South America and perhaps Antarctica would be even more beneficial.

 

[Underway]

It is helpful to look at the list of established operations which the RCN regularly undertakes, and it becomes relatively clear why assets have historically been focused around the East Coast. There has been a substantial amount of work done in the Caribbean (OP CARIBBE), Arctic (OP NANOOK), Europe (OP REASSURANCE), Africa (OP PROJECTION) and some more minor missions. Pacific vessels do heavily participate in the Indo-Pacific (OP PROJECTION), some limited work in the eastern pacific (OP CARIBBE) and off Korea (OP NEON) however, Atlantic vessels get pulled off to do this as well.

It is far easier to access the Arctic from the Atlantic, while obviously our substantial NATO commitments in Europe alongside our work more domestically is better served for much of the country by focusing on the Atlantic. Strategically, Atlantic ships are able to cover more provinces and our more expansive EEZ on said coast. This is doubly so given the ease of entering the Canadian Arctic from the east as well. People have mentioned infrastructure as well, which is a key point to take into consideration. It makes little sense to send ships to base where they have sub-par infrastructure.

The current strategy works fine, our access to the Panama Canal allows for the RCN to reinforce coasts at will during peacetime and in the lead up to potential conflicts.

I will also add that the Atlantic Coast connects to the St. Laurence Seaway which itself allows cities all the way up to Thunder Bay access to the ocean outside of winter. Ships with some minor icebreaking can make their way up to Montreal very late in the season and then drop their goods off on to trains.

Economically the East Coast (and St. Laurence connected cities) are a significant engine in Canada's trade economy, moreso than the Pacific Coast when taken in totality.

Hope you are well. I grew up in the Pacific. Admittedly, my knowledge of the Atlantic Ocean is limited. May I ask, how interchangeable is Canada's Pacific and Atlantic Ocean naval strategy?

Not sure what you are asking here, but they are different because the geography and ally structure is different, as is the "threat". East coast is NATO, established alliances, well practiced and good relationships. The GIUK gap and Arctic approaches are on the east coast and though the Atlantic is much smaller than the pacific more ships are needed just to cover our Economic Zones.

Pacific we don't have the same sort of threat. Our EEZ is much smaller and the self defence portion of the RCN by the very distances involved mean that less ships are required for all the naval tasks.

The Pacific strategy from an alliance perspective is also very different. There are not standing forces or task groups to integrate into. We'll jump on them when they are available (VDQ joined the Prince of Whales TG for a few months for example) but its more about single ship and small group exercises, training and operations.

 

[Underway]

Asia is becoming increasing important for Canada. While NATO requires RCN commitment so do our Pacific friends. Agree the Arctic is best supported by east coast basing. Given US actions lately, how reliable will Panama Canal access be in the future? Probably a combination of more ships and and mission trimming (e.g. Africa) would sort things.

With increased icebreaker presence from the PC2's and other ships, the seasons where non-ice resistant ships can operate in the arctic may open up, and we can do season passages through should we need to. It's a long way to go though. Panama is generally the best option to the West Coast, but if the problems are in the South East Pacific, going around Africa to allies like Singapore and Australia is probably the same distance as using the Panama Canal.

 

[StevoJH]

With increased icebreaker presence from the PC2's and other ships, the seasons where non-ice resistant ships can operate in the arctic may open up, and we can do season passages through should we need to. It's a long way to go though. Panama is generally the best option to the West Coast, but if the problems are in the South East Pacific, going around Africa to allies like Singapore and Australia is probably the same distance as using the Panama Canal.

Unless something has recently changed, Panama has huge capacity restraints currently due to a lack of consistent rainfall. Basically they have very limited throughput through the locks or they risk running out of water in the lake that feeds them.

A few months ago they were charging an additional fee (in the millions) to skip the queue.

Edit: Apparently they are almost back up to the pre-drought number of transits per day.

 

[John Fedup]

SKorea continues to promote their bid for Canada's sub requirement by bringing their most recent model across the Pacific to Victoria, BC. Two Canadian submariners joined the boat in Hawaii.

South Korea’s First Trans-Pacific Submarine Deployment Reaches Canada - Naval News

 

[Systems Adict]

Just seen this on my news feed...

River Class Destroyers to get THALES towed array

 

[swerve]

I'd assumed that the TAS had already been selected. Doh! The choice is no surprise.

 

[spoz]

Imagine Ultra might be a little peeved!

 

[76mmGuns]

SKorea continues to promote their bid for Canada's sub requirement by bringing their most recent model across the Pacific to Victoria, BC. Two Canadian submariners joined the boat in Hawaii.

South Korea’s First Trans-Pacific Submarine Deployment Reaches Canada - Naval News

I was surprised how many women were in the crew photos from the SK sub. I don't follow SK navy very much so I was unaware they'd become so mixed.

On another note, is a 3000 ton sub long legged enough for a place like Canada? The SK sub stopped over at Guam and Hawaii on it's way to Canada. I assume both for showing the flag and refueling.

 

[John Fedup]

On another note, is a 3000 ton sub long legged enough for a place like Canada? The SK sub stopped over at Guam and Hawaii on it's way to Canada. I assume both for showing the flag and refueling.

A limitation all SSKs have but the KSS-III has a 10,000 nm range. SKorea's recent announcement on developing a SSN might be another reason to choose the Korean bid over the German one for a possible SSN acquisition twenty years from now.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Type 212CD: Germany and Norway ready to transfer submarines to Canada

Should the Canadian government choose the offer from German naval shipbuilder TKMS for the procurement of up to twelve new submarines, the company intends to deliver four Type 212CD submarines to the Canadian Navy by 2036

www.navalnews.com

Should the Canadian government choose the offer from German naval shipbuilder TKMS for the procurement of up to twelve new submarines, the company intends to deliver four Type 212 CD submarines to the Canadian Navy by 2036, the German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius explained in an interview with CBC News on Wednesday.

Quite a clever move in my view, as it gets around the obvious concern from Canada that it would have to wait a long time for the boats due to existing orders. Four boats by 2036 isn't bad in my view. The only question is what the timeline for the remaining boats would be. If it's more protracted, that would make the South Korean bid more attractive.

All in all this is a nice development for Canada, as they now have some real choice.

 

[John Fedup]

Type 212CD: Germany and Norway ready to transfer submarines to Canada

Should the Canadian government choose the offer from German naval shipbuilder TKMS for the procurement of up to twelve new submarines, the company intends to deliver four Type 212CD submarines to the Canadian Navy by 2036

www.navalnews.com

Should the Canadian government choose the offer from German naval shipbuilder TKMS for the procurement of up to twelve new submarines, the company intends to deliver four Type 212 CD submarines to the Canadian Navy by 2036, the German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius explained in an interview with CBC News on Wednesday.

Quite a clever move in my view, as it gets around the obvious concern from Canada that it would have to wait a long time for the boats due to existing orders. Four boats by 2036 isn't bad in my view. The only question is what the timeline for the remaining boats would be. If it's more protracted, that would make the South Korean bid more attractive.

All in all this is a nice development for Canada, as they now have some real choice.

Both the 2036 delivery promise and the following subsequent deliveries will be a concern. Add in the existing VLT capability with the SKorean SSKs along with the recent announcement SKorea will develop a SSN….some additional future capabilities and opportunities for involvement by Canada’s nuclear industry makes the SKorea bid my choice.

 

[CorvetteCrunch]

Type 212CD: Germany and Norway ready to transfer submarines to Canada

Should the Canadian government choose the offer from German naval shipbuilder TKMS for the procurement of up to twelve new submarines, the company intends to deliver four Type 212CD submarines to the Canadian Navy by 2036

www.navalnews.com

Should the Canadian government choose the offer from German naval shipbuilder TKMS for the procurement of up to twelve new submarines, the company intends to deliver four Type 212 CD submarines to the Canadian Navy by 2036, the German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius explained in an interview with CBC News on Wednesday.

Quite a clever move in my view, as it gets around the obvious concern from Canada that it would have to wait a long time for the boats due to existing orders. Four boats by 2036 isn't bad in my view. The only question is what the timeline for the remaining boats would be. If it's more protracted, that would make the South Korean bid more attractive.

All in all this is a nice development for Canada, as they now have some real choice.

I am particularly skeptical of this sudden about-face on the part of the Germans, who just not long ago was telling Canadians that even if the TKMS bid was accepted, we would have to enter into Govt to Govt negotiations to secure their timelines. This is starting to reek of desperation to throw this out at the last minute, atleast in my eyes, anything to get the customer to sign on that dotted line.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I am particularly skeptical of this sudden about-face on the part of the Germans, who just not long ago was telling Canadians that even if the TKMS bid was accepted, we would have to enter into Govt to Govt negotiations to secure their timelines. This is starting to reek of desperation to throw this out at the last minute, atleast in my eyes, anything to get the customer to sign on that dotted line.

As I said, it gives Canada options. There's nothing worse than only having one viable bid for an expensive project like this. At the very least it ensures that South Korea can't kick back and assume they're under no pressure to expedite a Canadian build.

 

[John Fedup]

As I said, it gives Canada options. There's nothing worse than only having one viable bid for an expensive project like this. At the very least it ensures that South Korea can't kick back and assume they're under no pressure to expedite a Canadian build.

True, but South Korea is also under pressure to keep their submarine production on-going to prevent a valley of death scenario which is why they are chasing other export opportunities in addition to Canada plus their SSN project will take years to develop.

 

[John Fedup]

SeaSpan is making good progress on the RCN's second JSS. A third order would be useful.

Canadian Navy's second joint support ship reaches structural milestone - Naval Today

 

[Underway]

SeaSpan is making good progress on the RCN's second JSS. A third order would be useful.

Canadian Navy's second joint support ship reaches structural milestone - Naval Today

PRESERVER is hot on PROTECTEUR's heels. It's likely to be delivered only 6 months behind PRO's delivery date, even though they started building 18 months after they started PRO. I'm starting to think they might change the ships names one night when no one is looking as PRE starts to overtake PRO. Oh look PRO is still going to be first of class! (the rumour mill is that is what happened with HALIFAX and VANCOUVER as they were being built side by side).

PRE had more pre-fitting work done (which saved a LOT of time) and does not require nearly as much rework as was required on PRO (where they made all the first of class mistakes). They will also benefit from PRO's acceptance trails, as a lot of the bugs and processes should be worked out by then, so PRE crew will gain from PRO crew experiences.