Royal Canadian Navy: In Depth - Fact File - The Role of Canada's Major Warships
The Navy sure thinks they need to be boarding ships. I imagine the boarding they are describing has to do with international operations and police duties that do not involve Canadian defense. As you said our CG does that.
Here is a list of what our Navy says it must do both in home waters and on international assignments:
1. move quickly from one area to another;
2. be effective in all weather and sea conditions;
3. possess sufficient endurance – to reach the areas where they are needed and
to remain in these areas long enough to complete the tasks that they will be
called upon to perform;
4. use sensors – such as radars, sonars, electronic surveillance systems, and
ship-borne helicopters – to determine who else is in the area and what these
other aircraft, ships, or submarines are doing;
5. defend against a range of diverse threats – such as attacks from other ships,
aircraft, missiles, and submarines;
6. apply appropriate levels of force – against other ships, aircraft, submarines, or
land targets should it be necessary to accomplish the tasks that have been
assigned it;
7. communicate – through radio and satellite systems – with other ships, aircraft,
submarines and ashore;
8. be interoperable – to work with and share information with the warships of other
allied navies when participating in multinational operations; and
9. carry a modern, maritime helicopter – to dramatically increase a warship’s
effectiveness
10. provide the means to exercise command – to enable a nation’s seagoing
commanders to assume command of a group of warships that have been
brought together to accomplish a common mission.
The Canadian Navy webpage then goes on to discuss why we must have large frigates and destroyers so our allies will respect us and we can have "symbolic value." It sounds like the Navy prefers to see itself as primarily a force to be deployed in foreign operations when clearly that is only the last of three of its primary missions. This list says "big ship" but I think when you create requirements that point towards a forgone conclusion, eyebrows raise. As I understand, this same thing has happened with some specs for a replacement plane. The specs were written so only the F-35 could be considered.
Reading the above list and keeping in mind that it is the coast guard's job to board ships, it seems that domestic defense of Canada / NA has more to do with surveillance, all-weather capability, and the ability to strike than anything else. I will recall my layered submarine argument and add this as proof of cost effectiveness.
Large SSK subs performing surveillance of Canada's coastal regions, communicating directly with threats, or alerting coastal defense and or coast guard ships to board potential threats could work. The Germans at the beginning of WW2 used to board all merchant ships and use charges to sink them until thinks got out of hand. Submarines could probably send boarding parties themselves for those few times when it was necessary. Coastal defense ships could be directed in to intercept while the subs silently monitors if it didn't want to give up its position.
Much cheaper than expensive large frigates and destroyers.
Our Arctic north could finally be properly defended with the use of AIP technology allowing for a month of underwater operations. Frigates and destroyers can't patrol the northern coast of Canada effectively and the APS have been reduced to 'slush breakers.'
Canada should build a few (8) Absalon style frigates with extended armament and two or three troop transporting replenishment ships to transport our Army, or help out in a crisis. Domestic search and rescue should be the sole domain of the CG and they should be properly equipped to do it.
If the navy wants to 'impress' people standing on a dock or military brass from other countries when they all go out for recess together than it can send the support frigates and and replenishment ships in one or two large groups to fewer crisis zones. Still part of international operations but within a reasonable scope.
I originally envisioned the following:
15 SSK AIP (like the Type 216)
8 Coastal defense ships like the Visby but redesigned for Atlantic/Pacific duty and carrying a helicopter
8 Absalon like frigates but better armed and a helicopter or two
3 replenishment ships with troop carrying capacity and maybe some V-22s if they can reduce costs
The 8 coastal defense ships would probably end up working with the CG most of the time anyway but still should be CN and armed as a warship.
(don't you love 2 way bets!)