# Rear Admiral speaks about the Navy's future fleet



## gwp (7 Apr 2009)

The February speaker at the Naval Officer’s Association of Vancouver Island was Commodore Nigel Greenwood (now promoted to Rear Admiral and posted to Ottawa) who briefed the NOAVI on plans for reequipping the Navy to meet challenges which lie ahead. 

As reported in the Associations News Letter. 

http://www.noavi.ca/leadline/apr09leadline.pdf

One of the largest re-capitalization programs ever, will include replacements of Tribals then Frigates, as well as Joint Support Ships. The JSS will be capable of commanding a Joint Task Force, as well as transporting troops and equipment and will enter service somewhere around 2012-2016. Further plans include one operational submarine on each coast starting in 2010 with eventually two and possibly three subs dedicated to the West Coast. New Arctic offshore patrol vessels (polar class 5) will be capable in sea states of six to nine, will support a 12 person dive team, carry 2 enclosed lifeboats, two rescue boats, 1 RHIB and 1 Landing Craft. Capable of speeds of 20 knots, they will be able to cruise 8200 nm at 14 knots and will be self-sustaining for up to 120 days. Aircraft will include the CH-148 Cyclone and Sealift capability of 203 ISO TEU containers. The 12 frigates will remain in service until 2020-2030 and will remain the backbone of the fleet but with necessary modernization to face evolving threats and maintain interoperability with our allies. This program beginning in 2010-2017 will include Command and Control Systems, Communications and Weapons systems, Radars and electro-optic sensors and accomodation for the Cyclone.
The Iroquois class destroyers are scheduled for de-commissioning in the 2015 timeframe and a further four ships will be built in Canada with unique command and control and Area Air Defence capabilities.


----------



## Sailorwest (8 Apr 2009)

Of course the issue is now one of manning for this fleet of the future.  I do not believe that the recruiting system will be able to keep up with demand for people to crew all of these ships. Right now, the KIN class crews have been decimated with CT to the REG force and there is almost nobody left at the NRD level to replace them. By the time the AOPS comes along, I don't know who they would be able to find to go to sea in them on a regular basis.


----------



## Snakedoc (8 Apr 2009)

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> By the time the AOPS comes along, I don't know who they would be able to find to go to sea in them on a regular basis.



Perhaps the crews of the AORs and Destroyers at their end of service in 2015 (according to the chart in the article).  This could possibly be supported by Frigate crews for ships in refit and permashad crews from the MCDVs.  The chart depicts a transition from one platform to another in timeframes after their end of service but it is highly likely this will neither be smooth nor timely leaving a gap in between.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Apr 2009)

While manning is crucial, I think capability is of equal importance. I will be very worried for our Navy if we do not have a credible AAD/Flagships or AORs. While needed who cares if we have a glorified patrol vessel. We need a well rounded Navy. With the AOPS, I also believe that  we willl become a glorifed floating constabulary force and if that becomes the case you will lose sailors in droves. You can only do a port visit to Frobisher Bay so many times before your sailors become bored and will look elsewhere.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (8 Apr 2009)

4 month patrols with the *highlight* being a port visit to Frobisher bay. And they thought sub ports were bad....


----------



## Sailorwest (9 Apr 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> 4 month patrols with the *highlight* being a port visit to Frobisher bay. And they thought sub ports were bad....


I don't think anyone was expecting northern port visits to be adding much to the patrol. My comments above were more geared on the general manning issue the Navy has now. I agree that the upgrades and replacements for the DDG/DDH and FFH would be the priority as would the AOR/JSS concept. However, given the churn lately about demonstrating soveriengty in the north, the need for that AOPs patrol will be an important element of what the Navy is doing in Canada. If they can't find the manning to do all of this, there will be some hard decisions made as to what needs to be prioritized in meeting the needs of the government of the time. 

Dolphin 48 (I wish I knew what I did with all of these sort of codes)


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (9 Apr 2009)

;D

The long range plan has no mention of destroyer replacements in the next 20 years, although it has funding for AOPS and JSS. The long range plan also has no mention of CF-18 replacements, which will be due in the same general timeframe. Maybe Aurora replacements as well.

AOPS is funded, so it'll probably happen. And probably around the same time as the destroyers are paying off....that's only 6-9 years away. That makes an easy choice for where to get the AOPS crews.


----------



## Sailorwest (9 Apr 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> The long range plan has no mention of destroyer replacements in the next 20 years, although it has funding for AOPS and JSS. The long range plan also has no mention of CF-18 replacements, which will be due in the same general timeframe. Maybe Aurora replacements as well.
> 
> AOPS is funded, so it'll probably happen. And probably around the same time as the destroyers are paying off....that's only 6-9 years away. That makes an easy choice for where to get the AOPS crews.



I am sort of pointing back to the OP comments and the link where COMFLTLANT seemed to indicate the destroyers would be replaced with the new SSC. I don't know if he was just blowing smoke but...

I can't say that I have been following the destroyer replacement ideas much.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Apr 2009)

I wouldn't write off the SSC just yet, after all a lot of people thought the tank was gone from our regiments and looked what happened.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (9 Apr 2009)

SSC isn't funded either.

The tanks took funding from another project. They can't really do that with SSC, or NGFA, or whatever they're calling the Aurora replacement....the budgets involved are too large.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Apr 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> SSC isn't funded either.
> 
> The tanks took funding from another project. They can't really do that with SSC, or NGFA, or whatever they're calling the Aurora replacement....the budgets involved are too large.



Any project stood up must have some degree of funding...maybe not enough to fund it but enough money is being spent to seriously look at the options for capital projects.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (10 Apr 2009)

I agree, but that's not what's happening with those projects. They aren't even zero-funded. As far as PWGSC and the capital plan are concerned, they don't exist.

The individual service commanders can allocate some of their discretionary funding, which is probably what's happened so far. However, they don't have nearly enough funding to even start a major project.


----------



## CountDC (14 Apr 2009)

Just in case anyone was wondering - Rear-Admiral Greenwood is the Assistant Chief of Maritime Staff so is a pretty good source for the plans of the navy.

Manning is a concern that hopefully they will overcome - recruiting so far is slightly losing the battle with releases out numbering enrolments by a small amount.


----------



## Snakedoc (14 Apr 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Just in case anyone was wondering - Rear-Admiral Greenwood is the Assistant Chief of Maritime Staff so is a pretty good source for the plans of the navy.
> 
> Manning is a concern that hopefully they will overcome - recruiting so far is slightly losing the battle with releases out numbering enrolments by a small amount.



Though outnumbering enrolments by a small amount, the larger loss with the retention issue is the experience and training dollars spent on these sailors that go out the door.  This and the amount of additional new money that needs to be spent on the increasingly large groups of new enrolees coming in in order to keep up with the retention issue 'battle'.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Apr 2009)

Potentially 3 subs dedicated to the west coast?  

I highly doubt that would happen, but I feel that we should have more naval assets out here on the west coast.


----------



## CBH99 (15 Apr 2009)

I'm a bit out of my lane in regards to Navy matters, but in regards to the technological matters:  Can't automation be used to help limit the negative impact of personnel shortages?

While I am not in the Navy, I do my best to keep up with current military technology for all branches.  I know I've read articles and seen shows on both Discovery channel and History channel about many navies in Europe going the hi-tech/hi-automation route.  

Is it possible that the next generation of Canadian naval vessels will take advantage of automation to help simplify its manning requirements?  (And would having highly automated vessels not allow for more ships, as the manpower could be spread out further??)

Just curious...


----------



## CountDC (15 Apr 2009)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Though outnumbering enrolments by a small amount, the larger loss with the retention issue is the experience and training dollars spent on these sailors that go out the door.  This and the amount of additional new money that needs to be spent on the increasingly large groups of new enrolees coming in in order to keep up with the retention issue 'battle'.



and yet they still will not offer resigning bonus's to keep the skills. As one member at a meeting in Halifax a few years back mentioned to them - the offer of $5k to stay would go a long way to make them feel wanted and stay.


----------

