# Canada’s shrinking navy still valued by allies, analysts say



## GAP (15 Jul 2012)

Canada’s shrinking navy still valued by allies, analysts say
Published on Saturday July 14, 2012 
Article Link

Canada’s navy isn’t exactly a juggernaut. According to Michael Hennessy, a professor of naval history at the Royal Military College in Kingston, the Canadian navy has 33 commissioned vessels but only 14 fighting ships.

“The ships Canada sent during the first Gulf War were immediately relegated to patrolling as far away from Iraq as possible so they didn’t get in harm’s way,” he said. “They are old.”

In 2008, the government promised to invest $490 billion in new equipment and upgrades, including new icebreakers and Arctic patrol ships.

Two years later, plans were announced to replace aging Canadian navy and coast guard vessels — including nine new ships at a cost of $194 million.

Hennessy said it’s unclear when new navy and coast guard vessels might be ready because formal contracts and design plans have not been finalized.

It is possible the new ships could be replaced by cheaper radar installations or a program that would give Canada underwater listening capabilities.

Still, the Canadian government appears determined to have an on-the-water presence in the North, particularly when countries are redefining international borders.

In the 1980s, the United Nations created the Law of the Sea treaty, which allowed countries to claim territory extending to the end of their continental shelf. Countries were given until 2014 to submit detailed maps with new proposed boundaries. 
More on link


----------



## winnipegoo7 (15 Jul 2012)

Could someone check my math here: 

12 frigates + 3 destroyers + 4 subs + 2 tankers + 12 MCDVs + the Oriole = 34.

12 frigates + 3 destroyers + 4 subs = 19 'fighting ships'.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jul 2012)

Do the subs count if they can't leave dock yet?


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

Careful, the Navy guys will tell you that as long as they can get up to ramming speed, all of our vessels can be considered "fighting vessels". >


----------



## eurowing (15 Jul 2012)

They all can be Minesweepers..... Once!


----------



## Popurhedoff (15 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do the subs count if they can't leave dock yet?



Are you talking about the submarines in the West Edmonton Mall? They leave the dock.

Cheers
Pop


----------



## aesop081 (15 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do the subs count if they can't leave dock yet?



HMCS VICTORIA is currently in Hawaii, participating in EX RIMPAC 2012. I'm pretty sure she had to leave dock to do that.

http://www.army.mil/article/83489/


----------



## MARS (15 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Careful, the Navy guys will tell you that as long as they can get up to ramming speed, all of our vessels can be considered "fighting vessels". >



"We keep you alive to serve this ship. Row well, and live. " Judah Ben Hur


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> HMCS VICTORIA is currently in Hawaii, participating in EX RIMPAC 2012. I'm pretty sure she had to leave dock to do that.
> 
> http://www.army.mil/article/83489/



Under her own power?  She could have been towed or Piggy Backed!

Here's hoping she performs well on the ex, and I look forward to pinging the crap out of it.  No sleep for you!


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (17 Jul 2012)

So according to the article we can operate anywhere in the world because of our supply ships?  We have 2 of them, so if one or both are damaged/destroyed we can no longer be considered valuable?  The article is a little vague and short in my opinion.

I ofcourse believe that we need more soldiers, sailors, airmen, ships, planes, etc.  Another rant for another time I suppose but how long do we allow the CF to be chipped away until there is a crisis and the people on the hill wake up and start thinking "what the **** do we do now?"  *sigh


----------



## dimsum (17 Jul 2012)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> So according to the article we can operate anywhere in the world because of our supply ships?  We have 2 of them, so if one or both are damaged/destroyed we can no longer be considered valuable?  The article is a little vague and short in my opinion.
> 
> I ofcourse believe that we need more soldiers, sailors, airmen, ships, planes, etc.  Another rant for another time I suppose but how long do we allow the CF to be chipped away until there is a crisis and the people on the hill wake up and start thinking "what the **** do we do now?"  *sigh



I agree with what you're saying, but to put it into perspective:  We aren't facing cuts like what is happening to the Brits and the Aussies.  The ADF is cutting $5 billion in one shot despite Australia having a boom cycle because of mining and natural resources, while the Brits are chopping regiments, airplanes, everything it can to stay "in the black".  

Some ADF folks are seeing the signs and starting to look our way...


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (18 Jul 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I agree with what you're saying, but to put it into perspective:  We aren't facing cuts like what is happening to the Brits and the Aussies.  The ADF is cutting $5 billion in one shot despite Australia having a boom cycle because of mining and natural resources, while the Brits are chopping regiments, airplanes, everything it can to stay "in the black".
> 
> Some ADF folks are seeing the signs and starting to look our way...


True.  We're better off then some, but I still want my cake and the bakery too.  I'm greedy like that   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jul 2012)

For the "our subs can't leave drydock" crowd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfgecbxU5cs&feature=player_embedded#!


----------



## GAP (18 Jul 2012)

good to  see...


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2012)

Thanks.  Not exactly the earth shattering kaboom of the RAN shoot on video that everyone has seen.  But good to see her shoot nevertheless.


----------



## dimsum (18 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> For the "our subs can't leave drydock" crowd
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfgecbxU5cs&feature=player_embedded#!



Please.  Those folks won't believe it's VIC until it surfaces, the crew lines up on the hull and you can point out their names on their NCDs to cross-check that they are, in fact, the crew.  Until then, they'll think it's still safely doing nothing in Esq   >


----------



## Sheerin (18 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> For the "our subs can't leave drydock" crowd
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfgecbxU5cs&feature=player_embedded#!



Impressive, only took 17 minutes to sink.


----------



## cupper (18 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> For the "our subs can't leave drydock" crowd
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfgecbxU5cs&feature=player_embedded#!



If they can fake the moon landings on a Hollywood sound stage, this would be peanuts. >


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jul 2012)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Impressive, only took 17 minutes to sink.



And only 14 years to get that torpedo fired from the time we bought them.


----------



## cupper (18 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And only 14 years to get that torpedo fired from the time we bought them.



Time well spent. ;D


----------



## Monsoon (18 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And only 14 years to get that torpedo fired from the time we bought them.


A decade of which was spent with the funds set aside for the sub refit being used to support operations in Afghanistan. Do you regard that as a misallocation of resources? I didn't think so.

It's easier to make jokes about the sub "boondoggle" than it is to understand what subs do and why the program has taken the time it has. Bottom line: we were at war and that war didn't involve submarines, so hard decisions got made. Get yer yucks in, because it could be your favourite program next time around.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jul 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> A decade of which was spent with the funds set aside for the sub refit being used to support operations in Afghanistan. Do you regard that as a misallocation of resources? I didn't think so.
> 
> It's easier to make jokes about the sub "boondoggle" than it is to understand what subs do and why the program has taken the time it has. Bottom line: we were at war and that war didn't involve submarines, so hard decisions got made. Get yer yucks in, because it could be your favourite program next time around.



Subs should have been working when we got them. If we bought Leopard 2 tanks or Chinooks that weren't serviceable for 14 years people would be equally up in arms. We got screwed on those subs, and its not the Navy's fault. They were pushed into a hole to either buy those, and go without. I think we need subs, but proper ones, not lemons from a country that didn't want them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> For the "our subs can't leave drydock" crowd
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfgecbxU5cs&feature=player_embedded#!




That was awesome!


----------



## Monsoon (18 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Subs should have been working when we got them. If we bought Leopard 2 tanks or Chinooks that weren't serviceable for 14 years people would be equally up in arms. We got screwed on those subs, and its not the Navy's fault. They were pushed into a hole to either buy those, and go without. I think we need subs, but proper ones, not lemons from a country that didn't want them.


You can forget about the 14 year number - the planned refit time was five years and now you know why it took 14. It had nothing to do with the condition of the subs, which were as good as any ship that's been out of commission for a few years.

I agree that in an ideal world we'd have built new subs to replace our old ones, but if in late 1998 Chretien had given the Navy the green light to plan on that, we'd still only be getting them in the water today (if the programme had even survived Af'stan budget reallocations). The Navy leadership of the day reckoned it was worse to "gap" the capability and suffer skill fade than it was to have subs with decade-old hulls and refitted combat systems. As it transpired, life happened and that capability gap occurred anyway (hello, dramatic west coast grounding).

And now that 14 year gap is in the past, we'll have three of four very good subs operational by early next year, which is better than we ever had in the 1990s. It's time to stop griping about the past and start thinking about how we're going to replace them in 20 years.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jul 2012)

Sorry, I forgot how the army stole all of the CF's money for Afghanistan.  :



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> And now that 14 year gap is in the past, we'll have three of four very good subs operational by early next year, which is better than we ever had in the 1990s. It's time to stop griping about the past and start thinking about how we're going to replace them in 20 years.



And you should know that planning for that replacement in 20 years won't start for 19 more years, which is the same broken procurement system that got us sub-standard (no pun intended) submarines that were not operational when purchased. Hopefully then we'll have a government that will put the money where its needed to buy the right ships at the right time.


----------



## Monsoon (18 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sorry, I forgot how the army stole all of the CF's money for Afghanistan.  :


One last contribution to this thread derailment before I check out, because that last comment has led me to suspect I'm up against a deliberate troll. Some rhetorical questions: Did I claim the decision to defund the sub program to support Afghanistan was a bad one? Would you have decided to do differently?


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jul 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> One last contribution to this thread derailment before I check out, because that last comment has led me to suspect I'm up against a deliberate troll.


Someone disagreeing with you does not necessarily make them a troll. Maybe you're right -- it's time to take a break.


----------



## wesleyd (19 Jul 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> One last contribution to this thread derailment before I check out, because that last comment has led me to suspect I'm up against a deliberate troll. Some rhetorical questions: Did I claim the decision to defund the sub program to support Afghanistan was a bad one? Would you have decided to do differently?


Not sure how the sub program was deferred or defunded, everytime we had work that had to be done by dockyard workers on an operational ship that was ramping up for a Gulf tour we had lower priority to submarine work. Believe me I have nothing against subs, I served proudly on Ojibwa for ten years. I saw the Upholders before we bought them and the submariners in charge of taking care of them were telling us then how much trouble they were. On the other hand I got a chance to sail on Triumph, this was supposed to be Canada's nuclear sub. What an imporvement over the O boats. I shorly applied to go general service right after the announcement was made that Canada was to purchase the used Upholder submarines, glad I did too because I more than likely would have been on Chicoutimi.
 No matter how I look at it I can't see the value for money spent compared to capability. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Jul 2012)

Just to go back to the awesome vid, and add some levity, the first 45 secs or so of the video show everyone why ASW helo and patrol plane pilots just love it when submariners dare to use their periscope.


----------



## RDBZ (24 Jul 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I agree with what you're saying, but to put it into perspective:  We aren't facing cuts like what is happening to the Brits and the Aussies.  The ADF is cutting $5 billion in one shot despite Australia having a boom cycle because of mining and natural resources, while the Brits are chopping regiments, airplanes, everything it can to stay "in the black".
> 
> Some ADF folks are seeing the signs and starting to look our way...



Most of the ADF budget "cuts" were really just the rescheduling of expenditure due to schedule slippage in major programs like the F-35.  The only real "cut" was axing of the army's long running SPG project in favour of more M777s.  Also the RAAF's 8 remaining 35 year old C-130Hs were retired ealier than orginally planned - not a big issue considering they have picked up 2 additional C-17s as ad-hoc purchases over the last few years and have also taken delivery of the KC-30s.  At a broader level the RAAF has aleady started lobbying for an increase in its fighter strength, with 12 EF-18Gs to be retained in addition to the planned 100 strong F-35 buy.


----------

