Not to get too political but I will again ask you all how Canada has benefited from any of the adventures we have been on lately.
Well that is being political thats an answer best given by your politicians not Defence Talk where all here to debate defence related matters only.
Peace keeping under the UN or our own flag, and disaster relief is all our army needs to be doing (armoured cars are sufficient for that IMO). That is what builds good will in the world.
This is best debated in the Army & Land Forces Thread not here this thread will lose its direction too quickly and get bogged down in my stick is bigger than yours debates.
Our Navy could do that with three joint support ships and a couple of escorts for each. A small fleet of subs (10-12 for domestic defence and international use)
can you elaborate a bit more on why you need these ships so we can all understand your POV?.
and some type of surface vessel (you guys don't seem to like the Visby) for coastal defence and limited blue water patrols.
You have had some very knowledgable pers stating why the Visby would not suit the RCN some have alot of knowledge on ship design, sailors, procurement etc with no axe to grind. Does the Visby have the same endurance as a Halifax Class frigate at 18 knots?, whats the highest seastate it can operate a Helicopter in since it does not have a Hangar? can it operate in seastate 6 in open ocean or will it have to run to a sheltered inlet for protection these are answers that you have not provided to back your case.
A quick search found the following infomation which speaks volumes on its design.
Visby was conceived while the Cold War was still “hot,” and Sweden was engaged in mine countermeasures and antisubmarine operations close to home. Its mission was defensive: to ward off potential interference to the East, and to keep Baltic waters safe for commercial shipping – to strengthen Sweden’s hand in its own shoal-water, island-filled environment, by enhancing what has traditionally been called Sweden’s “littoral know-how”.
EXTREME LITTORALS
That know-how dovetailed perfectly with the broad international shift away from open-sea naval operations, toward actions in more contained and difficult environments. In littoral waters, piloting and navigation difficulties, and the opponent’s proximity, increase a combatant’s risks, so these waters have since gained the urgent-sounding name “Extreme Littoral” – defined as a high-threat environment that places additional demands on a vessel’s efficiency, performance, and survivability.
Now a shallow water designed ship is going to help you how in the Atlantic & Pacific oceans there are other designs out there that will cope with both these Oceans better than a Visby.
I understand perfectly what you are saying about capability based on doctrine, I just think the doctrine is flawed and though this blog was about how we would restructure the navy, not how we would build one to continue current doctrine.
Government sets the Political Objectives it requires from its Armed Forces if those have not changed then the Strategic Plan will remain the same until your Government says otherwise then it is status quo. At this point I'll say that your Defence force Doctrine is meeting those said objectives. Doctrine has to be compatable with other like minded countries the same countries that Canada have been doing successful UN Type operations, The same Doctrine they are using in Afghnistan with other NATO countries.
If I may this is the Mission of your navy:
Mission:
The Royal Canadian Navy maintains combat-capable, multi-purpose maritime forces to meet Canada's defence objectives.
Its roles include:
• Defending Canadian sovereignty by upholding the laws around its shores.
• Protecting the environment and safeguarding our fisheries and energy resources
• Contributing to the defence of North America.
• Assisting other government departments in times of emergency or natural disaster.
• Supporting Canadian interests abroad through NATO, the United Nations and coalition operations and humanitarian missions.
From this im reading that the RCN is meeting everything that you wish to change?.
You talk doctrine but have no clear understanding of what it is and how it is applied, the NZDF Doctrine is compatable with the following, NATO, ABCA, & individual Countries [UK, Australia, US etc] we use that doctrine to give us a commom platform for us to work within a larger Task Force / Division etc.
I'd prefer the new Type 216 if it is as good as some are saying but all specs aren't out yet and it may not be the sub I'm hoping it would be for Canada. I definitely think my idea of teaming up with Australia is the way to go whether its the 216 or another sub we build together.
Have a read of the RAN thread reference the Collins class and why Australia will not buy another paper sub, 216 looks good on paper but the pitfuls of upscalling a design just dont work the Collins Class was an enlarged version of Swedish shipbuilder Kockums' Västergötland class and originally referred to as the Type 471, Kockums over promised & under delivered if im wrong then my Auzzie brothers will correct me.
I understand our navy is not configured for a flotilla of subs that large but your talking about some restructuring in the navy and recruitment.
Nice but to better understand where you are coming from what exactly are you proposing? a complete scrapping of the surface fleet or a complete change to a Coast Guard type force.
I'm sure a country of 35 million people could find enough willing people to crew 10 - 12 subs. Pay them more and you'll find no problems.
I hear this alot its a throw away line what alot of people dont realise is that private enterprise will always outstrip a Government department when it comes to recruiting, we are after the same type of recruit a Defence Force just cant compete for wages vs private industry and thats a fact regardless if you have 35 million.
Here is what the Canadian Navy says about subs:
"For a nation like Canada, the potency and stealth capability of submarines makes these warships one of the most effective means of deterring a military or other major challenge to our national security from anyone who would exploit the sovereignty of our maritime economic zone. The modern diesel electric submarine is capable of being deployed anywhere in the world in support of Canada’s foreign policy objectives, whether to participate in an international military exercise with our allies, or as part of Canada’s contribution to a multi-national military operation. Canadian submarines will be capable of conducting independent or coordinated patrols in foreign water to monitor or intercept suspicious maritime traffic or protect Canadian and coalition warships in a dangerous environment. " And they operate at 1/3 the cost of frigates or destroyers."
No brainer but what context was the speaker delievering the above quote from can you post the link from it so we can all get a better picture.
On another note, what happens to the Aegis equipment on the three destroyers? I know it sounds too easy but why not install them on the new support ships. I bet there is good reason why it can't be done but it sounds great on paper since they going and coming around the same time.
Does your Navy have the Aegis combat system on the Iroquois-class, I see they went thru the TRUMP upgrade replaced everything except the Radar system or are you talking about something else.
Liked rips idea of a joint project with the Americans to design and build a better Arctic Patrol Ship together. The PC-5 rated ones we're looking at now don't seem to do anything the Coast Guard can't do right now besides fire off a missile or two.
Makes sense to work with your neighbour to develop a Artic patrol ship what ship do you recommend and why to me ive got no idea of an artic patrol ship does it need to be an ice breaker type or like the RNZN OPV.
Still need a sub that can go under ice. Type 216 or Aussie build? You guys don't seem to think the Type 214 can cut it.
wiki might not be the most accurate but a quick search did bring this up:
The Type 214 procurement programs of international customers have had a history of technical problems. The first Type 214 submarine sold to Korea, Son Won-il, was reported to suffer noise problems allegedly due to faults in HDW's Type 214 design. South Korean and Greek Type 214 submarines had a host of other nearly identical problems, including instability while surfaced, periscope vibrations and seawater leaking in the hydraulics. While these problems in the South Korean Type 214s have been reportedly resolved, the noise level has yet to be reduced as promised by HDW. The company was fined $4.1 million by DAPA in February 2008 for ongoing technical problems. In November, a South Korean National Assembly demanded price reductions for the remaining six submarines, arguing that HDW was using the South Korean market to correct faults in the Type 214 to increase the submarine's overall international export potential. It is uncertain if DAPA received a price reduction for the fourth unit when it was contracted to DSME
I am of the school of thought that surface ships in a conventional war will quickly become useless. All that science about them being able to stop x income threats so fire X+1 at them and the Falklands example with aircraft, submarines, and anti-ship missiles (which lucky for the Brits were too few and mostly didn't detonate). Surface ships will quickly be destroyed or will run for their home ports. Subs and aircraft will carry the day.
What old school are you from WW2, Cold war, Gulf War the lessons the RN re-learnt were not new without the navy the falklands will be Argentian now yes they lost ships thats always going to happen in War.
Here is a question how is the RAF & Submarine fleets going to re-take the Falklands have a read of the amount of tanker support it took the RAF to drop one bomb on the airstrip.
PS. Army needs assessment are based on current government doctrine which I believe has redefined us as peace makers not peace keepers.
A Government does not set doctrine the Military sets doctrine in line with the Governments Strategic outlook i gather your government is playing its part as a global citizen.
I would have that changed back and yes many will not like the sound of that but I don't think our soldiers should be put at risk for political gain and trade negotiation deals with our allies which btw don't even happen anyway. Involvement in Afghanistan did little to resolve Canadian trade disputes with the US.
This should be debated in another thread not here i will say though defence is linked no matter how much you dislike it to Foreign Affairs & Trade, if you wish to become isolationist then be prepared to give up the big screen TV, cars, iphones etc because nothing comes free and I know our country has spent the last 20 years in the wilderness its only now NZ is seeing real change.
