Rebuilding a smaller mid sized Navy

[Future Fleet]

Why so many subs, do they really need almost half of the total "first line" combat fleet to be submarines?

Being a small country with a vast frontage, Canada can not effectively control the seas. The size of the surface fleet to do so would be prohibitive for our budget. We can however deny access to an enemy by the strategic use of capable submarines. IMO submarines are the best choice for our northern border as well.

Not likely to have to deal with an advanced nation attacking us but I'd rather have SSNs for offense and SSKs for defense than 15 surface ships that would end up on the bottom of the sea in the first 20 minutes of a real fight. Aside from that unlikely scenario, SSNs can lend Canada the credibility needed/wanted as part of international operations and the Absalons can fill the role of command ships as well as a half dozen other roles.

I agree with 1805 that the Absalons may make the need for replenishment ships that have the capability to ferry the army overkill but its nice to have the flexibility for larger operations.

 

[Belesari]

yes and no (don't you love 2 way bets!)

The USCG has been engaged and participated in "deep blue" water exercises since 911. eg they now regularly deploy into the northern atlantic and the middle east to support anti-piracy patrols.... They are now embedded and regularly rotate into "normal" naval task forces

their role has started to change even though primarily they are not a maritime strike force in the traditional sense

Whats more the USCG has operated in a offensive capacity for a long time. From shore bombardment in vietnam to hunting subs in the carribean and atlantic they are very much a escort navy/lawenforcment.

 

[Sea Toby]

Whats more the USCG has operated in a offensive capacity for a long time. From shore bombardment in vietnam to hunting subs in the carribean and atlantic they are very much a escort navy/lawenforcment.

Frankly, when the USCG pulled the sonars from their cutters nearly two decades ago, the USCG gave up the mid ocean convoy escort mission. The USCG is today a constable force, even while deployed with the US Navy in the Black Sea or Persian Gulf. None of the cutters have ASW torpedo tubes, surface to surface missiles, much less surface to air missiles that many foreign FAC and corvettes have.

While ASW torpedo tubes and SeaRam can be added quickly, the USCG have no intentions of doing so short of a major war threatening the US coast. At the moment the USCG has its hands full with the constable mission.

 

[swerve]

And that's what it should stick to, as that's its reason for being. When the USCG starts bombarding foreign shores, or chasing submarines in mid-Atlantic, it's acting as part of the navy, & not doing the coast guard job.

It's like the US navy having its own army (the USMC), which has its own air force, & is so independent that the USN recently mooted (I don't know if it actually happened) setting up new units to perform the original role of the USMC, etc. US forces seem incapable of sticking to their roles, but all want to do everything.

 

[Future Fleet]

What is everyone's opinion on the STX PV-85 as a coastal patrol ship for Canada for Atlantic and Pacific duty? Has anyone found something better?

 

[Belesari]

And that's what it should stick to, as that's its reason for being. When the USCG starts bombarding foreign shores, or chasing submarines in mid-Atlantic, it's acting as part of the navy, & not doing the coast guard job.

It's like the US navy having its own army (the USMC), which has its own air force, & is so independent that the USN recently mooted (I don't know if it actually happened) setting up new units to perform the original role of the USMC, etc. US forces seem incapable of sticking to their roles, but all want to do everything.

The marines do what is nessesary. The marines have found that they had to get heavier and heavier as the WoT went along. They are planning to lighten up but....

You have to remember that the Marines have to fight for their existence. Even though they have shown their skill and nessesity countless times.

Another thing is that the Navy is trying to get its own peice too. The Navy is showing signs of......i dont really know a name for it. Anyways call it a identity crisis. During the WoT the army and marines and to a lesser extent the airforce have been on the front lines. The navy dispatched FO i think around 50,000 almost (which alot of people including this one think is stupid the navy needs men/women on ships not doing what the army or marines Can do). So if you have a limited supply of people on board and have to do patrol train people as Borders.....which the navy actucally used to do.

Other than that very stupid people in congress seem to think Navies are either a thing of the past or just appear so why cant we cut half of it!?

Then there is the Pentagon wars. Whoever controls the money controls the DoD. SO number of people equals power. The Airforce has basicly ruled sense forever its why you see the Airforce arguing over 200mil dollar fighter planes which it wants thousands of while the navy just wants 50 500mil dollar ships.

BUT basicly our entire military is in a mess has been for a couple decades now.

Congress and the senate dont help with their pet projects.

 

[Belesari]

What is everyone's opinion on the STX PV-85 as a coastal patrol ship for Canada for Atlantic and Pacific duty? Has anyone found something better?

Maybe for pacific duty but the north atlantic or the bearing sea? Im not sure.

 

[Belesari]

Frankly, when the USCG pulled the sonars from their cutters nearly two decades ago, the USCG gave up the mid ocean convoy escort mission. The USCG is today a constable force, even while deployed with the US Navy in the Black Sea or Persian Gulf. None of the cutters have ASW torpedo tubes, surface to surface missiles, much less surface to air missiles that many foreign FAC and corvettes have.

While ASW torpedo tubes and SeaRam can be added quickly, the USCG have no intentions of doing so short of a major war threatening the US coast. At the moment the USCG has its hands full with the constable mission.

The problem is that some of the places the USCG is called to operate could become or already are dangerous.

 

[Cadredave]

Maybe for pacific duty but the north atlantic or the bearing sea? Im not sure.

The two ships in this class patrol NZ southern ocean not to sure about the sea states in the Barents sea but have a look at the following specs, also this class of ship is not a War fighter but part of the RNZN maritime Patrol fleet.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_class_offshore_patrol_vessel"]Protector class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Belesari]

The two ships in this class patrol NZ southern ocean not to sure about the sea states in the Barents sea but have a look at the following specs, also this class of ship is not a War fighter but part of the RNZN maritime Patrol fleet.

Protector class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any idea how much they cost?

 

[MrConservative]

Any idea how much they cost?

The two Protector Class OPV's came in at NZ$180m (USD$140m).

More info here:
http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/opv_article.pdf

 

[Sea Toby]

The STX 85 meter OPV would be effective OPVs for the Canadian Pacific and Atlantic coasts up to the icepack. While they have the range and endurance to reach the US/Russia Bering Sea, they don't have the endurance for a EEZ patrol in the Bering Sea. But they do have the endurance to patrol the Inside Passage and the Labrador-Newfoundland coasts.

Like US cutters, OPVs are designed more for constable duties than they are as warships. The Irish Naval Service ships have the 3 inch Oto Melara gun mount, whereas the RNZN use a 25mm Bushmaster gun.

 

[Future Fleet]

The STX 85 meter OPV would be effective OPVs for the Canadian Pacific and Atlantic coasts up to the icepack. While they have the range and endurance to reach the US/Russia Bering Sea, they don't have the endurance for a EEZ patrol in the Bering Sea. But they do have the endurance to patrol the Inside Passage and the Labrador-Newfoundland coasts.

Like US cutters, OPVs are designed more for constable duties than they are as warships. The Irish Naval Service ships have the 3 inch Oto Melara gun mount, whereas the RNZN use a 25mm Bushmaster gun.

Any reason why the STX 85 couldn't be armed like a corvette and some sensors added?

My plan for a cost effective Canadian defense was a mix of three long range AIP subs per coast operating two at a time for patrol and five OPV per coast backing them up closer to shore and or performing any boarding of vessels.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Any reason why the STX 85 couldn't be armed like a corvette and some sensors added?

Then it becomes 80% the cost of a frigate, so what was the point of buying that small (supposedly cheap) 2000t OPV?
You are forgetting that the two largest costs of a warship isn't the structure and the fuel costs, or even maintenance (unless is is an intensive nightmare). The two largest costs are the systems and the through-life crewing requirements.

EDIT: I assumed that by "armed like a corvette" you mean a 57-76mm gun/SSM/PD-SAM(such as ESSM)/(optional CIWS)/helicopter capability.

My plan for a cost effective Canadian defense was a mix of three long range AIP subs per coast operating two at a time for patrol and five OPV per coast backing them up closer to shore and or performing any boarding of vessels.

You cannot sustain that kind of patrol effort over a long period, even if you are going to multi-crew the subs. The vessels/crews need time to maintain, train and regenerate effort. You can't do that with 2/3 of your subs always at sea.

COMMENT EDIT: I understand where you are coming from with your ideas. Like many Canadians (and others around the world), you see the military coming back from long operational commitments and associated military expenditure and reassessing defence needs in light of uncertain economic conditions. You are looking for a new peace dividend.

Canada is in a fortunate security position in an area of low external, conventional threat. As such you are looking at what Canada needs to defend Canada and no more; Gen4 fighters (Gripen NG) to police air space, smaller vessels for EEZ patrol and national defence and some larger support vessels for token humanitarian relief.
But this ignores Canada's broader national interest and international commitments which isn't served well by 2000t OPVs and (arguably) Gripen.
When it is given up, capability cannot be gained back quickly when it is required.

The easiest capability for a nation to commit is transport aircraft and warships, but they aren't going to commit an OPV to a potentially hostile situation (such as a renewed Tanker War) and once you get rid of your frigates it can take many years to get them back again.

 

[Dodger67]

Canada has an enviable advantage in living next door to the biggest baddest bruiser in town - "If you're mean to me I'll call Bubba from next door to come beat you up eh!"

It enables Canada to get away with a far smaller military than other countries of comparable size and/or population - such as Australia.

 

[Sea Toby]

Canada has an enviable advantage in living next door to the biggest baddest bruiser in town - "If you're mean to me I'll call Bubba from next door to come beat you up eh!"

It enables Canada to get away with a far smaller military than other countries of comparable size and/or population - such as Australia.

If Canada had only one coast to defend, Canada could easily have a navy one third less. But Canada has two major coasts, not counting the Arctic. Canada needs at least a third of their ships, possibly more, navy or coast guard, in the Pacific. Its more than a week long journey through the Panama Canal. Canada has more defense commitments in the Atlantic/Caribbean, which is the reason why their Atlantic fleet is larger.

I see OPVs more as a coast guard ship than a naval warship. But as a naval ship the OPVs can be used to patrol in the Caribbean and show the flag leaving the frigates for more important duties.

 

[Future Fleet]

I've given it some thought and I now think the OPV should be turned over to the coast guard. Arm them in a similar manner to a USCG Cutter and change the mission of the CCG to include law enforcement and territorial protection duties. The submarines will still patrol the EEZ and the approaches to it for naval coastal defence.

SCSCS Absalon class heavily armed 10 (4 west, 6 east coast)
Replenishment ships 2 (1 per coast)
SSNs 3 (east coast)
SSKs 15 (6 west, 9 east coast)

Mid and Offshore coastal fleet for new coast guard modeled after USCG. Also two PC-1 APS lightly armed

 

[ASSAIL]

.

Canada needs at least a third of their ships, possibly more, navy or coast guard, in the Pacific. Its more than a week long journey through the Panama Canal. Canada has more defense commitments in the Atlantic/Caribbean, which is the reason why their Atlantic fleet is larger.

I would imagine that Canada's force posture in the 21st Century will change substantially. A greater focus on N.Asia and the APAC region will surely follow as European relevance dwindles and the 2:1 East:West force deployment should reverse.

Having stated the obvious, I have no doubt that the traditional ties to Europe and the NATO area will continue for some time despite the unstoppable march of the the Asian century.

 

[Future Fleet]

If Canada had only one coast to defend, Canada could easily have a navy one third less. But Canada has two major coasts, not counting the Arctic. Canada needs at least a third of their ships, possibly more, navy or coast guard, in the Pacific. Its more than a week long journey through the Panama Canal. Canada has more defense commitments in the Atlantic/Caribbean, which is the reason why their Atlantic fleet is larger.

I see OPVs more as a coast guard ship than a naval warship. But as a naval ship the OPVs can be used to patrol in the Caribbean and show the flag leaving the frigates for more important duties.

I agree with Sea Toby on the OPVs. To go further, if we built a CCG similar to the USCG and gave them 10 or 12 proper OPV with helicopter pads this would reduce the Canadian Navy's need to do coastal patrol. I assume the CCG would need to have some basic weaponry like a 40mm gun maybe a stinger and grenade launcher here or there like the USCG. Side benefit is that the US and Canadian coast guards could work much better as a united front defending the continent.

These new CCG ships could be built to accept additional sensors or armament in case of a large scale war. Maybe a modular system that could allow them to do anti-mine work or even towed sonar to hunt littorals for enemy subs. Lightly armed CCG patrol ships will be cheaper than building naval grade OPV and give us the same sovereignty protection.

Small flotilla of SSKs would still patrol and help monitor fisheries and EEZ due to cost efficiency and strategic defence. This would leave the surface CN ships to power project around the world. One question, the Halifax class are undergoing refits to take them to 2030 and we are building 15 SCSCS plus 8 APS and 3 JSS. Does this mean a Halifax class will be taken offline as each new SCSCS enters service? Surely we can't be ending up with all those surface vessels.

Does anyone think the 8 Arctic Patrol Ships are a good idea? It seems to be it is better to have three or four CCG ships with PC-1 than 8 CN ships with only PC-5.

IMO Canada's biggest achillies heel right now is our inability to patrol under the Arctic ice. I'd love a small flotilla of SSNs for this purpose and in my last post I listed 3 SSNs for Canada but that's an ideal world and I'd like to know more about AIP technology. Can a SSK's travel under the ice with AIP. I've tried searching and haven't found much. Anyone know about this?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Small flotilla of SSKs would still patrol and help monitor fisheries and EEZ due to cost efficiency and strategic defence.

Yep submarines and fishing nets have an excellent history of finding each other. Its just what happens next which is the problem. :lol3