# Navy could shift to Pacific



## GAP (4 Aug 2013)

Navy could shift to Pacific
August 2, 2013 - 9:16pm By PAUL McLEOD Ottawa Bureau 
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1145828-navy-could-shift-to-pacific

 OTTAWA — The growth of China could push the Royal Canadian Navy’s focus to the Pacific and away from Halifax, according to some defence analysts.

Military resources are jealously guarded by politicians and local governments, but some recent papers by defence analysts wonder how long the navy’s status quo can last.

The American navy is already “rebalancing” its fleet away from the Atlantic in what’s been dubbed the “Pacific pivot.”

Canada’s fleet still tilts toward the Atlantic. There are currently seven Halifax-class frigates and two Iroquois-class destroyers on the East Coast, versus five frigates and one destroyer on the West Coast.

Theoretically there will be two submarines for each coast when they are fully repaired.

This is at a time when Canada’s trade policy is focused on Asia and former defence minister Peter MacKay lobbied for Canada’s entry into a conference of defence ministers for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

In a 2012 paper for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, retired rear admiral Roger Girouard argued the only way to make headway on these goals is for Canada to “be a Pacific player, not an afterthought.”

That comes down to having a consistent navy presence in the region, said Girouard, former commander of Maritime Forces Pacific.
more on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2013)

It's about time for an about turn to recognize that our strong, right arm, needs to be extended towards Asia, not Europe.


----------



## Transporter (4 Aug 2013)

And just this summer the CF put a BGen in HQ USPACOM to serve as deputy J3, which is unprecedented at the US Geographic Combatant Command level.


----------



## Lumber (4 Aug 2013)

C Jetty is looking a little crowded as it is...


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Aug 2013)

Lumber said:
			
		

> C Jetty is looking a little crowded as it is...



But if they get rid of the MCDVs as mentioned in another thread, then Y jetty will open up.  >


----------



## Lumber (6 Aug 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> But if they get rid of the MCDVs as mentioned in another thread, then Y jetty will open up.  >



But then we bring the AOPS in...

Bell, even without shifting the focus west we'd be hardpressed to find room for them. 

Actually, I'd be curious to know if the higher ups actually have figured out just how many ships a given base CAN support. Forget parking space for the ship's, I mean everything from clothing stores to base services. I .e. "CFB Halifax can support 13 Heavies max"


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Aug 2013)

Lumber said:
			
		

> But then we bring the AOPS in...
> 
> Bell, even without shifting the focus west we'd be hardpressed to find room for them.
> 
> Actually, I'd be curious to know if the higher ups actually have figured out just how many ships a given base CAN support. Forget parking space for the ship's, I mean everything from clothing stores to base services. I .e. "CFB Halifax can support 13 Heavies max"



You bring up a very valid point.  Its not just as simple as sailing a few hulls from the right coast to the left...  This would be a huge logistic undertaking


----------



## Stoker (6 Aug 2013)

I don't know if I missed any news on TV but lots still going on in Europe and the Middle East. I doubt if we'll see any redeployment anytime soon, and if there were lots of releases.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Aug 2013)

Why wouldn't you base all the AOPSs out of Halifax?  Assuming open waters in the North you are looking at Canadian coastal waters all the way from Grand Manan to Inuvik.

The west coast is cut off from the North by Alaska.

Esquimalt seems to make more sense for a Pacific bluewater fleet.


----------



## Lumber (8 Aug 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't you base all the AOPSs out of Halifax?



Lack of sufficient manning, jetty space or dor support? 

Imagine no MCDVs and no AOPs on the west coast. How will SHADs get their navigation experience?


----------



## Cronicbny (8 Aug 2013)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Lack of sufficient manning, jetty space or dor support?
> 
> Imagine no MCDVs and no AOPs on the west coast. How will SHADs get their navigation experience?



Teaching RFPs how to navigate in Orcas?


----------



## Lumber (10 Aug 2013)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Teaching RFPs how to navigate in Orcas?



We'd nerd more Orcas.


----------



## ringo (10 Aug 2013)

Forward base frigate at Pearl, should help with crew retention.


----------



## Lumber (10 Aug 2013)

ringo said:
			
		

> Forward base frigate at Pearl, should help with crew retention.



Where is the like button!!


----------



## Underway (11 Aug 2013)

I would still prefer Canada absorbing the turks and cacos and building a navy base there. 

As for AOPS I think there are plans for around least two to go on the west coast.  If you move the orcas off the heavies jetty and place them over with the tenders or find them space on Y jetty or across the harbor at FDU you could find some space.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Aug 2013)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Where is the like button!!



haha I think I woul re-muster to Navy just for this  >


----------



## dimsum (12 Aug 2013)

And of *course* we'd have to get in with the USN's MQ-4C Triton UAV program, attaching Canadians to their planned squadrons at Pearl-Hickam, NAS Point Mugu (Los Angeles) and Kadena AB, Japan.  

I'll even let others take Hawaii and Japan; I'll go to LA   >


----------



## Baz (12 Aug 2013)

All the ISR Ops will be out of Jacksonville:
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130205/NEWS/302050316/UAV-squadron-stand-up-Oct-1-1st-since-2007

There was some talk of Whidbey Island as well, but it looks like there isn't enough money.


----------



## McG (12 Aug 2013)

More media discussion on this possibility.


> *Navy should shift warships to West Coast in response to China’s aggressive military buildup, defence analysts say*
> Peter O’Neil,
> Postmedia News
> 11 Aug 2013, 9:45 PM ET
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/11/navy-should-shift-warships-to-west-coast-in-response-to-chinas-aggressive-military-buildup-defence-analysts-say/


----------



## dimsum (12 Aug 2013)

Baz said:
			
		

> All the ISR Ops will be out of Jacksonville:
> http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130205/NEWS/302050316/UAV-squadron-stand-up-Oct-1-1st-since-2007
> 
> There was some talk of Whidbey Island as well, but it looks like there isn't enough money.



Seems like that article is pay-per-view or something.  So Jax instead of Creech is basically the story there?


----------



## Baz (12 Aug 2013)

US Global Hawke is all flown out of Beale, Predator and Reaper out of Creech.  I think the USN wanted separate for the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets, therefore Whidbey and Jax, but there doesn't seem to be the money.

The USAF has made pushes to try to include Triton in its Global ISR DCGS (Distributed Common Ground Station), which does the Processing Exploitation and Dissemination (PED) for Global Hawke, U2, Predator, etc, but the USN has pushed back, as the USAF isn't very good at Maritime Common Operational and Tactical Picture (COTP).


----------



## Underway (15 Aug 2013)

The thing is I don't think Canada strategically has as many interests or security concerns in the Pacific as we do in the Americas.  This may change but currently and quietly the Gov't has been focusing on the Americas and Caribbean in much of its foreign policy issues.  The operations hub in Jamaica and the sudden interest in OP CARIB over the last 5 years demonstrate this to a certain extent.  Our main security concerns actually come from the south vice the flashy pacific problems.  As well the Arab Spring has demonstrated Africa and the Med may be more of an issue going forward.  This strategic reality, politics in Halifax and yes space concerns in Esquimalt will ensure that the balance will probably be Atlantic heavy for the foreseeable future. 

We will see with  the addition of the AOPS the Gov't may be able to move ships around to achieve a more focused fleet mix based on missions, effects and strategic realities without worrying about losing jobs issues in Nova Scotia.  Adding 6 AOPS to the east coast would free up a frigate to move west where frankly the AOPS would not be as useful.  Also leaving 2-3 subs out west and sending only one back east might be a move as well (as I have my doubts that Chicoutimi will ever sail again unless as a training platform)

Fleet mix might look like this

Esquimalt:
1 DDH
6 FFH
6 MCDV
3 SSK
2 AOPS (only if we exercise the option for 8 otherwise 0)
1 AOR

Halifax:

2 DDH
6 FFH
6 MCDV
1 SSK
6 AOPS (potential to work well in the Caribbean due to their ability to embark 40 extra pers and their planned ability to carry various boats, equipment and helo's - more potential than the MCDV's)
2 AOR  (if we exercise the option for 3 otherwise only 1 here) 

With batch 1 of the CSC then you have 2 DDH on each coast.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Aug 2013)

The RCN's boss's explanation about why Canada's ships are where they are (highlights mine):


> “*The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) recognizes the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region for Canada and is committed to building and enhancing relations with key defence and security allies in this part of the world.  In fact, the size and capabilities of the RCN’s Pacific fleet have been increased considerably since the 1990s in response to the changes occurring in the Pacific region.*
> 
> The RCN takes an active role in building strong and lasting relationships with coalition partners by participating in multinational exercises, operations and good-will deployments in the Pacific region, such as the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and WESTPLOY. These activities improve our ability to work together in response to various operational scenarios – from the provision of humanitarian aid and disaster relief to full-combat operations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Aug 2013)

Deploying into the Pacific is true blue water stuff, requiring larger ships and robust support vessels. Plus any potential adversaries outside of the Malacca straits will be fairly substantial in their own right. Deploying to the Caribbean is likely far easier with the state of our current fleet and likely involves police or humanitarian roles.


----------



## Underway (22 Aug 2013)

Its a lot more green water than you might think especially in the South China Sea, and Straits.  Anything we would do would integrate in a US Carrier Task Group or some other alliance fleet.  Canada is already working on options for a military support hub in the area.  Singapore would probably be ideal for us.  Right in the mix geographically, commonwealth nation, fairly high tech, good lanes of resupply, they take security seriously....  Drop a frigate there when needed, add MPA or more ships as required.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2013)

The problem is that there lots of blue between us and the green!  

Canada should avoid getting dragged into the green water stuff, let the locals deal with that, our job would likely be escort/ASW/AD of task forces and merchant shipping.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Aug 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> haha I think I woul re-muster to Navy just for this  >



Of course, to align with our new national energy strategy, we should base them in Prince Rupert. It would save on the skin cancer claims too  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2013)

Since someone took offense to my previous post, yes I know the Atlantic is a blue water ocean, my reference is to the ships discussed in this thread. The AOPS and MCDV can easily operate down along the East coast into the Caribbean, far easier than crossing the Pacific. 

Underway, my wife’s Uncle is a Chief Mate of a Malaysian Coast Guard buoy tender operating in the Malacca straits out of Port Klang. Interesting stories about pirates and such from him.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Aug 2013)

Colin, I'm with you on the MCDVs crossing the Pacific, but it would be no trouble for the AOPS: The damn things are bigger than the IRO's or HAL's, not to mention bigger than the contemplated CSC's and with greater unrefuelled range than any of these ships. Moreover, they are supposed to be designed to operate in  the Grand-Banks in winter so, no problem with bad weather either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2013)

Unless they screw up the C of G and they have to fill the fuel tanks full of concrete....but of course that would never ever happen....(cough, gag, ack)


----------



## Ostrozac (27 Aug 2013)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin, I'm with you on the MCDVs crossing the Pacific, but it would be no trouble for the AOPS: The damn things are bigger than the IRO's or HAL's, not to mention bigger than the contemplated CSC's and with greater unrefuelled range than any of these ships. Moreover, they are supposed to be designed to operate in  the Grand-Banks in winter so, no problem with bad weather either.



That's a fantastic observation. I wonder what it means for the cost of operation, and what tasks they will be assigned. The navy is used to operating with high-cost 5000-ton frigates and low-cost 1000-ton MCDV. The 6000-ton AOPS will certainly not be cheap to operate.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Aug 2013)

Actually, there are two big ongoing costs to consider: Fuel and crewing.

The AOPS will have crew requirements only very slightly higher than MCDV's and clearly below frigs/destroyers. So big saving.

For fuel: bigger than frigs/destroyer, but with diesel electric propulsion that will achieve only marginally more (+1 Knot only) speed than the MCDV's and no need for gas-guzzling GT engines for high speeds of the frigs/destroyers. So probably more expansive than MCDV's but cheaper that the FFH/DDH.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Aug 2013)

To repeat a post elsewhere:



> Does one want to send a ship to Asian waters with "a maximum speed of at least 17 knots" if any possible serious action is envisaged?
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.page
> 
> A ship of this type?
> ...


http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/111619/post-1252902.html#msg1252902

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2013)

It would certain give the commanders an interesting mix to work with. In a perfect world you could have 3 classes of ships with as many sub systems the same as possible, so portions of the crews could rotate to the required ship as required and be ready to operate in short order. Now back to the real world....

In light of Marks post, the AOPS appears to be a useful ship to respond to crisis's like New Guinea, Haiti, Aceh, Japan along with our spanking new support ships.


----------



## Underway (27 Aug 2013)

@OGBD

I don't know if the AOPs will actually be larger than the frigates but they are definitely in the same or bigger tonnage category (~5800 tonnes).  All that extra hull reinforcement for smashing through ice up to 1.2m thick, not sure on their dimensions anymore.  AOPS are probably going to be in the 100m LOA range and the frigates IIRC are in the 135m LOA area.   I agree that their speed will be marginally better than MCDV's - top speed 17 vice 15 and a cruise of 14 vice 8-12 depending on DA's. 

As for sending them to the south pacific that seems more like a proper heavies job.  However a modern 25mm gun and 2-4 x.50 cal along with a boarding party and their boat is enough to handle pirates IMHO.


----------



## chrisf (28 Aug 2013)

Depends on the cooling system... if the AOPS were designed for Canadian/arctic waters, they may not be able to handle the tropical heat... not much point in being there "operationally" if you're stuck doing 5 knots.


----------

