# Sinking the navy



## Stoker (8 Feb 2007)

Sinking the navy 

Wed Feb 7, 2007 7:02 pm (PST) 
Flawed defence plan ignores critical needs 

Sun Feb 4 2007
Peter Haydon

DEFENCE Minister Gordon O'Connor's new defence plan leaves too many 
unanswered questions. It wasn't surprising that it quickly drew fire 
from the naval community, which seems to have the most to lose. The 
plan does indeed indicate a significant loss of capability for the 
navy at some point in the future. 
The so-called Canada First defence strategy recommends that the navy 
get rid of its two fleet support ships, used for refuelling and 
supplying combat vessels at sea. The plan would leave the navy unable 
to refuel vessels at sea for at least two years until replacements 
are built. The problem, of course, is that tenders have not been 
issued for replacements and, given past practice, it will be tempting 
for Ottawa to continue to delay issuing a contract as a cost-saving 
measure. 

The air force is also affected under the plan, which calls for the 
elimination of six Aurora maritime patrol aircraft. The cuts are 
proposed as a way of funding other needed equipment. 

Giving up the fleet support ships before their replacements arrive 
probably spells the demise of the naval task group concept that has 
served this country so well for the last 15 years. On their own, the 
frigates don't have great endurance, perhaps some 11,000 kilometres, 
and this limits their operating range as well as making them 
dependent on refuelling stops in port or from one of the support 
vessels if they are to be at sea for more than about 10 days. For the 
navy to retain its traditional flexibility and mobility, it will have 
to buy or lease a commercial tanker and fit it out for the fleet 
support role. This is not difficult. The Australians have just done 
that with HMAS Sirius, and the British have considerable experience 
as a result of the Falklands War. 

O'Connor also wants to phase out one of the three Iroquois-class 
destroyers, which serve as command ships. The remaining two 
destroyers are more than 40 years old and are near the end of their 
service. The loss of the command ships needs to be put in 
perspective. If there is no task group to command, because there are 
no support ships, then the command ship is redundant. 

The question we should be asking is whether 12 frigates is enough to 
do the work that the navy has been called upon to do over the last 15 
or so years. For instance, will there be enough ships to maintain a 
frigate in NATO's standing naval force (as Canada has traditionally 
done for most of the last 40 years), and keep another frigate 
operating with U.S. and other Allied naval forces in the Middle East, 
as well as keep one frigate on patrol in both the Pacific and the 
Atlantic and also meet maintenance and overhaul requirements? That 
will be a stretch and there won't be anything left over if a new 
crisis arises or if someone suddenly decides that the task group 
should be re-formed and deployed. 
Getting rid of six Aurora maritime patrol aircraft makes absolutely 
no sense. There is a need to gather information on what is going on 
in all waters under our jurisdiction and an aircraft is an excellent 
way of doing it. Trying to claim that it can all be done by unmanned 
aircraft (UAVs) without first knowing if one can replace the other is 
questionable. UAVs are very capable but are they very reliable when 
flying over the major fishing grounds in storm? Can they drop rescue 
equipment to sailors in distress? Maybe we should know some of those 
answers before agreeing to the new defence plan. 

Paying off a few ships and aircraft isn't going to save any real 
money; it is naive to believe that. People are the major line item in 
the budget and paying off a few ships isn't going to provide instant 
savings in people who can be sent to Afghanistan. Anyway, what 
happens to O'Connor's new army once the Afghan campaign is over? Will 
it ever be used again? Is there any guarantee that Afghanistan is the 
model for all future intervention operations? In all probability the 
army will have to be reconfigured again, and in the meantime the 
government will have thrown away air force and navy capabilities of 
lasting and proven value. That seems to be short-sighted planning. 

What O'Connor's new defence plan does achieve is a reduction in the 
basic capabilities of the navy and air force but without having done 
some solid research to determine just what capabilities are needed 
for national security. Without being shown the analysis to support 
the new plan, it might seem that "Canada First" is merely 
becoming "Afghanistan First." In any event, long-term, national 
security requirements should be driving our force structure and not 
anything else. 

Peter Haydon is a Senior Research Fellow with Dalhousie's Centre for 
Foreign Policy Studies and 

the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Naval Review. 

The Winnipeg Free Press


----------



## Cardstonkid (8 Feb 2007)

I hope this proposal is in fact a trial balloon to test the viability of the idea ather than a set plan to go forward. 

The CF needs to grow, and not just the Army. It may be that it is politically impossible to fund urgent military requiremnts in the next few years and fight in Afghanistan. This begs the question, what then can the government do for the Military in this environment? The only hope is the Tories win a majority and that they can be more ambitious, but we all know that the military is low on the priority list for politicians, especially if it is a choice between ships for the Navy and funding for day care.  Pehaps we are to become New Zealand North? No real navy or Air Force. Sad.


----------



## apostle (8 Feb 2007)

As a non CF member this is probably one of those topics I should stay out of, but I cannot and will not remain silent.  Scrapping the Navy's auxilliary ships before replacements are available goes against all common sense.  Scrapping six Aurora aircraft is just as stupid, with the current terrorist threat one needs to be able to monitor ones land, air and maritime frontiers as much as possible.  I understand the Army which is heavily involved in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan desperately needs more funding for vital equipment, recruitment etc.  However, short changing the Navy and Air Force is a very short sighted policy which will leave Canada weaker not stronger.


----------



## Sub_Guy (8 Feb 2007)

I always thought if the military/government starts making sense it would be time to quit!

I don't know what the plans are, all the information I am getting is from the media outlets.  If it happens, it happens there isn't anything I can do about it.  

Scrapping anything without a replacement is always a bad idea, in my mind if we can make things work without supply ships, then why would be build more......... I only see this as a cut back..........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Feb 2007)

Hopefully someone will throat punch O'Connor to wake him up but I have my doubts. The man has  no clue what a naval task group can do for Canada if employed properly.

Not to mention the loss of a third of our survelliance air craft....come on! 6 CP140s!! Whatever crack they are smoking in Ottawa, they are definitely getting ripped off....


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Feb 2007)

It's definitely not good news if they do this. I hope it is just a trial balloon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2007)

See The Ruxted Group’s columns: A New Year's Resolution, A budget boost now, please, Prime Minister Harper, and Time is running out and Sen. Kenny’s and my comments in the Time is running out thread here on Army.ca.

One must hope that the published (_Ottawa Citizen_) reports, which, as that newspaper made clear, are based on a leaked version (still a Draft?) of the “Canada First” paper, are indeed intended to be trial balloons which will cause Canadians to wake up to the fact that successive governments, especially since 1968, have steadily eroded the capabilities of the Canadian Forces and have, thereby, deprived themselves of the flexibility required to respond to threats to Canada’s vital interests at home and abroad.

I have no doubt that the *”doubling the defence budget“* lead item was designed, precisely to create controversy - mostly from those factions who believe, sincerely, that Canada should disarm and become a northern Costa Rica or a big, rich Iceland.

Unless a substantial number of Canadians tell the PM, their MPs and the media that the _”doubling the defence budget”_ over 18 years is _waaaaaay_ too little and way too late, and means that we, Canadians, will disarm Canada by stealth and sacrifice our sovereignty on the alter of ‘free’ healthcare, then it is likely that the reported ‘doubling’ will become fact and we will lose our ability to assert our own sovereignty over our own territory and our ability to promote and protect our values around the world.  We will, in other words, go from _Colony to Nation_ (as historian Arthur Lower so aptly put iy years ago) back to colony again.

See, also, my latest comment in the  Deep-water Arctic Port in 2007 . . . or never? thread.


----------



## Navy_Blue (9 Feb 2007)

Sadly though we have put our requirements on the back burner for so long these ships will be lucky to make the 4 years they are calling for (let alone 6 to 8 more years).  We are in very rough shape now 40 years is pushing twice the expected life.  We can't expect much more out of our older hulls.  Between manning and equipment issues the Navy is in real trouble.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Feb 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The man has  no clue what a naval task group can do for Canada if employed properly.




What can a Naval Task Group do for us is employed properly ?

Just a straight up question no need to implode this time!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Feb 2007)

And I decline to answer your snarly remark...do your own research.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Feb 2007)

Wow that was a serious question too.

I am in the dark on this one so educate me. What can a Naval task group do for our country at this time ? Or in the future. 

My snarkey remark is because last time I asked this question people acted as if I was Paul Hellyer reborn coming to steal the navy away again. So if my remark offended thee i apologize perhaps I was a bit childish.

On a more serious note, these are questions the Navy needs to be asking its self. We have to find a niche to become relevant in this modern setting of the world. Personally I like the idea of being the Army's water taxi.


----------



## FSTO (11 Feb 2007)

I'll pick this up.
A task group gives us incredible flexibility to respond to crisis that need an immediate response that only the Navy can provide. The only problem is that we have never deployed the Task Group as it has been originally conceived (2 Frigates, 1 280, an AOR, SSK, organic Helo, and a MPA). Certainly we have sent partial Task Groups (Gulf War 1 and OP APOLLO) but most of the time we have sent ships one at a time, mainly due to lack of platforms.
We have also been solely focused on North Atlantic ASW since WWII. We have 2 or 3 generations of Naval Officers who have lived and breathed this capability for years and are loathed to change. Meanwhile the rest of the world are switching their focus from ASW, AAW, ASUW (but not chopping it off, just less focus) to the littoral. Canada is making halting steps towards the littoral but at times it has been very painful to watch. 
Meanwhile the USN have created the Expeditionary Strike Group which consists of a LHA/LHD (Tarawa or Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Carrier), an LPD (Austin Class) and the new San Antonio (LHA)  and a CV (Ticonderoga) and DDG (Arleigh Burke). This group will carry a Marine Expeditionary Unit. It was one of these carried out the operation to assist the Northern Alliance to oust the Taliban.

Not saying that Canada could launch something like this but here is what I would like to see:
Some type of Assault Carrier (the Aussies are looking to purchase one or two from Spain)
a JSS
1 frigate
1 280
(these two ships will be replace (hopefully) by the SCSC

This would give Canada a credible sea based force that could be a player in the littoral.
There was a quote I think from Lord Jellico (First Sea Lord) that the British Army was the point of a shell fired from the deck of a Royal Navy ship. This is one of the ways that the Canadian Navy regain her so-called relevance to the defence of Canada. (a relevance that I don't think we have lost)


----------



## Zoomie (11 Feb 2007)

I'll wade in here and pose a question...

The report mentioned a replacement frigate for the City class?  What's wrong with our 1980-90 era ships - we're still flying 1960-70 aircraft, can't the Navy keep their equipment for that long too?


----------



## FSTO (11 Feb 2007)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I'll wade in here and pose a question...
> 
> The report mentioned a replacement frigate for the City class?  What's wrong with our 1980-90 era ships - we're still flying 1960-70 aircraft, can't the Navy keep their equipment for that long too?



But do you really want to? Operate 60's - 70's era aircraft I mean. 
PRO/PRE were built in the 70's with 1950's technology they are wayyyy past their best before date. The 280's have had their update but they are pushing 40 years old. 
Now we could argue til the cows come home which service operates in the harshest environment but which would you rather have; operating something that is 30+ years old or something 10-15 years old. And I know that the B-52 and the Iowa class Battleship are well over 50 and 60 years old respectively.


----------



## Zoomie (11 Feb 2007)

Granted...

When were the City class built again?


----------



## FSTO (11 Feb 2007)

Saint John New Brunswick. The shipyard there is now a pulp and paper mill and I think the dry dock is filled in. Very sad really because alot of the federal treasury was used to bring that ship yard up to standard. Also SJ Shipbuilding had concept plans for a 280 replacement but it all fell through because of government indifference.

We had it right in the 50's and early 60'. There was a continuous building program that kept on improving on previous classes which culminated with the 280 class destroyer. Once they were completed they should have started work on a frigate replacement, followed by subs, then patrol craft, then AOR's and then repeat the cycle. This way all the infrastructure (shipyards, workers, experience) is maintained and improved over time, there were numerous instances in regards to the frigate project that the lack of knowledge led to huge mistakes and cost overruns.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Feb 2007)

Thank you, and I like the way you think FSTO


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Feb 2007)

It takes so long to get a new ship the way we do business now. When I joined the Navy in 77 I remember getting a brief on the Frigate program. The first one finally rolled out in the early 90s. The Falkland War caused some major redesign problems but still they took a long time from blueprint to commissioning.
As FTSO said that is why we need a program that is continuous rather than ramping up to build ships every 20 years or so...very wasteful and costs way more in the long run.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Feb 2007)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'll pick this up.
> A task group gives us incredible flexibility to respond to crisis that need an immediate response that only the Navy can provide. The only problem is that we have never deployed the Task Group as it has been originally conceived (2 Frigates, 1 280, an AOR, SSK, organic Helo, and a MPA). Certainly we have sent partial Task Groups (Gulf War 1 and OP APOLLO) but most of the time we have sent ships one at a time, mainly due to lack of platforms.
> We have also been solely focused on North Atlantic ASW since WWII. We have 2 or 3 generations of Naval Officers who have lived and breathed this capability for years and are loathed to change. Meanwhile the rest of the world are switching their focus from ASW, AAW, ASUW (but not chopping it off, just less focus) to the littoral. Canada is making halting steps towards the littoral but at times it has been very painful to watch.
> Meanwhile the USN have created the Expeditionary Strike Group which consists of a LHA/LHD (Tarawa or Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Carrier), an LPD (Austin Class) and the new San Antonio (LHA)  and a CV (Ticonderoga) and DDG (Arleigh Burke). This group will carry a Marine Expeditionary Unit. It was one of these carried out the operation to assist the Northern Alliance to oust the Taliban.
> ...



Like the other member named "apostle", although I am a civvy, I feel a duty to say my piece on the subject as well. 

As much as I respect our Navy/Marcom and their mission, compared to the US Navy, I just don't think our having a single assault carrier and her amphibious task group would have as much an impact as having a larger Army that could be easily airlifted.

The ARGs/MEUs of the US Navy and Marine Corps only have such an impact because of their numbers. As all of you well know, they are based around the 5 _Tarawa_ class and the 7 _Wasp_ class assault carriers. Having this many assault carriers and their accompanying LPDs/LSDs means having at least or 3 or 4 ARGs/MEU at sea all over the world and thus there is an ARG/MEU said to be within striking distance of any contingency/hotspot. 

That means at least one of the other task groups can be at port for refuelling/repairs or training. 

Now picture our having a task group...

What if a contingency like having all those Canadian citizens in Lebanon flares up again....what would happen if our single assault carrier like the one FSTO suggested is laid up in port for repairs or resupplying or training at the time of contingency? Would they be able to resupply and get underway right away and then make it to the contingency area/area of operation  in time to make a difference instead of us having to rely on one of our allies for help?

I'm aware that many other militaries, including the Royal Navy with their single amphibious task group based around HMS _ Ocean_ also have smaller amphibious capabilities compared to that of our American neighbors. Now I ask you, is it really cost effective to spend more money on building the ships and recruitng the crews for these task groups when having rapidly deployable, air-liftable Army troops/airborne units can do the job?  

I'm not saying that one should always emulate the  joint US Air Force and US Army capability when it comes to deploying a ready brigade of an airborne division anywhere in the world within a a matter of two days...but from the way I see it, more transport planes, airborne tankers and more paratrooper units would be less costly for a nation like us than having more costly amphibious ships, their escorts and the accompanying supply train, which is a luxury of a much larger power. 

Of course, I'm not saying we should not develop our amphibious capability with the advent of the JSS, but can we afford to jeopardize our foreign interests to maintain a minimal capability when having a more deployable, airborne capability might be more cost-effective?

BTW, please don't get me wrong in spite of what I typed above- I'm another Marcom wannabe and prefer that we have a larger fleet provided we have the budget and govt. support to build it. I'm just thinking that if we're gonna eventually become more than a "middle power", we'd better do it gradually and in the most cost-effective way. I don't want Marcom to end up like the Thai Navy who laid up their new assault carrier _Chakri Naruebet_ after a few years and they had problems with maintenance costs after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.

Still, while some of you would see this as intruding "on their lane", I just felt this other aspect needed to be addressed...

I appeal to the experts for their input.


----------



## FSTO (11 Feb 2007)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> Like the other member named "apostle", although I am a civvy, I feel a duty to say my piece on the subject as well.
> 
> As much as I respect our Navy/Marcom and their mission, compared to the US Navy, I just don't think our having a single assault carrier and her amphibious task group would have as much an impact as having a larger Army that could be easily airlifted.
> 
> ...



I should have put some numbers up
2 LHD
4 JSS
12 Frigates
4 C3 Destroyers

One LHD/2 JSS on each coast would give us a limited amount of flexibility required to have a group available while the other group is alongside. Now we would not be able to respond to every contingency but then again we wouldn't be standing around with out thumb up our butts listening to Josephine Chattering Class go on about why we are not responding to the latest urgent crisis.

As for the argument of shutting down the navy and using the money for extra troops, and planes is that those things need airspace clearance and staging areas near the AOO to get the things done. The Amphib Ready group gets around all that because of the freedom of the seas. Also those ships can be sent off to do other things when not busy with the latest Lebanon crisis. One last thing, out here on the left coast we have this little looming problem called the Juan de Fuca Plate which is set to do a major shift sometime soon. Now if this happens and Vancouver is hit, be advised that YVR is built on a sediment bed and would turn to soup if hit. Now think of the LHD and two JSS's at anchor in English Bay disgorging the troops and equipment, bringing back severely wounded to the hospitals inside these ships. The operations room humming with the command and control pers and civilian agencies conducting rescue, recovery and reconstruction efforts etc. This is what the Navy can bring to the table any time anywhere.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Feb 2007)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> I'm aware that many other militaries, including the Royal Navy with their single amphibious task group based around HMS _ Ocean_ also have smaller amphibious capabilities compared to that of our American neighbors. Now I ask you, is it really cost effective to spend more money on building the ships and recruitng the crews for these task groups when having rapidly deployable, air-liftable Army troops/airborne units can do the job?
> 
> I'm not saying that one should always emulate the  joint US Air Force and US Army capability when it comes to deploying a ready brigade of an airborne division anywhere in the world within a a matter of two days...but from the way I see it, more transport planes, airborne tankers and more paratrooper units would be less costly for a nation like us than having more costly amphibious ships, their escorts and the accompanying supply train, which is a luxury of a much larger power.



Cougarking, again allow me to point out a few things to you.

Airborne forces are about more than cargo planes and paratroops.  Your Lebanon example is a poor one.  NEO operations are rather simple.  But what if the country where you wish to deploy these airborne forces does not wish for those forces to be there ? Does the acronym IADS ring a bell ? Would you have us send in those brand spanking new CC-177s full of troops in without SEAD assets ? I doubt that Canada could afford whats needed to do an oposed airborne operation on its own. So to adress your concerns over costs of a naval task group, do not be fooled into thinking that having a deployable parachute capability ( that is effective that is) is any cheaper.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Feb 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Cougarking, again allow me to point out a few things to you.
> 
> Airborne forces are about more than cargo planes and paratroops.  Your Lebanon example is a poor one.  NEO operations are rather simple.  But what if the country where you wish to deploy these airborne forces does not wish for those forces to be there ? Does the acronym IADS ring a bell ? Would you have us send in those brand spanking new CC-177s full of troops in without SEAD assets ? I doubt that Canada could afford whats needed to do an oposed airborne operation on its own. So to adress your concerns over costs of a naval task group, do not be fooled into thinking that having a deployable parachute capability ( that is effective that is) is any cheaper.



I appreciate your input. I was aware Canada's ability to do an opposed airborne operation is rather limited now, since we don't have many options for overseas bases from which to launch escorts for those CC-177s and a limited air-to-air refuelling capability without relying upon our allies.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Feb 2007)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> CC-177s and a limited air-to-air refuelling capability without relying upon our allies.



I sugest you go read Globemasher's comments on AAR for our CC-177s in the " will the C-17s make it to the ramp" thread.  IIRC, this is not a capability we will have.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Feb 2007)

FSTO said:
			
		

> As for the argument of shutting down the navy and using the money for extra troops, and planes is that those things need airspace clearance and staging areas near the AOO to get the things done. The Amphib Ready group gets around all that because of the freedom of the seas.




FSTO,

With all due respect, never did I say in either of my posts that we should "shut down" the navy. We need a surface navy to protect the sea lanes- you have no argument from me about that. I was only questioning the feasibility of mantaining just one amphibious task group based around a single  assault carrier.  Having 2 of these assault carriers might be a better idea for meeting the contingency availability requirement...if we can get the budget for a second one. 

As for the airborne ops, I already conceded it was a bad idea for our current force due to the reasons cdnaviator already pointed out.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Feb 2007)

Just out of curiosity, is there in increasing consensus that BHS should be an LHD/LHA vs LPD (which my recollection was the original concept)?


Matthew.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Feb 2007)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> FSTO,
> 
> With all due respect, never did I say in either of my posts that we should "shut down" the navy. We need a surface navy to protect the sea lanes- you have no argument from me about that. I was only questioning the feasibility of mantaining just one amphibious task group based around a single  assault carrier.  Having 2 of these assault carriers might be a better idea for meeting the contingency availability requirement...if we can get the budget for a second one.
> 
> As for the airborne ops, I already conceded it was a bad idea for our current force due to the reasons cdnaviator already pointed out.



Cougarking, the premiss behind all this is that the Navy, without AORs cannot put a task group to sea for very long.  This is not only an issue for amphib ops but basic blue water operations. Without AORs the Navy is restricted to short-range and litoral operations or to depend on other navies to do its job.  While we can use allied AORs, this restricts the Canadian government's freedom of action in international affairs.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Feb 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Cougarking, the premiss behind all this is that the Navy, without AORs cannot put a task group to sea for very long.  This is not only an issue for amphib ops but basic blue water operations. Without AORs the Navy is restricted to short-range and litoral operations or to depend on other navies to do its job.  While we can use allied AORs, this restricts the Canadian government's freedom of action in international affairs.



Yes, I  did read the article and previous page before replying to FTSO's "shutting down the navy" comment. Taking HMCS _Protecteur_ and her sister ship out of service without an immediate replacement would be a bad idea; as would be taking 6 Auroras out of service just for the sake of budget cuts to free up money for other priorities.


----------



## FSTO (12 Feb 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, is there in increasing consensus that BHS should be an LHD/LHA vs LPD (which my recollection was the original concept)?
> 
> 
> Matthew.


My personal pref is a flat top carrier. The Wasp/Tarawa class are a little much for our needs.

From Schelde (Enforcer 18000)
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

French Mistral
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mistral/

The Spanish one from Navantia that Australia is looking at
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LHD_Navantia_lg.jpg

Right now only the Mistral in actually in the water.


----------



## TAS278 (12 Feb 2007)

FSTO said:
			
		

> My personal pref is a flat top carrier. The Wasp/Tarawa class are a little much for our needs.




I concur. We don't even have the man power to crew/fill them.. It would simply be another naval money hole.


----------

