Author Topic: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans  (Read 54316 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,624
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,977
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2015, 09:34:45 »
I have a few problems with this article and its conclusions:


1. "Pirates off the coast of Africa? Assisting migrant refugees in the Mediterranean? Evacuating Canadian nationals from a foreign war or disaster? Responding to the growing military tension in the South China Sea? Supporting a United Nations peacekeeping mission? The Canadian Navy is no longer capable of mounting any of these missions without significant help from others."

Our frigates are more than capable of conducting these missions without "significant help". The only help we need is with refuelling, and even then, it almost makes more sense to do it the way we've been doing it; using USN tankers. Why deploy one of your own AORs when the USN already has a ton of them sailing around? Just to show that you can? Other than refuelling at sea, our Frigates have all the capability they need to accomplish these missions.

2. "The frigates are smaller, have a crew compliment of 220 sailors, carry one helicopter, have shorter-range radar, less firepower and far less capable command abilities."

The frigates are longer and wider, and only 300 tons lighter. The fewer crew needed, the better. They have improved, modern 3D radars, have ASuW and ASW capabilities that the 280s lacked completely, and they have superior command capabilities (Link 16). Yes, they lack the Area Air Defence capability of the 280s, and this is something that we sorely need. However, this article makes it sound like the CPFs are a bunch of shore patrol boats.

3. "According to retired officers and naval experts, the RCN has objectively deteriorated to its lowest capability in over 40 years."

I would like to echo what others have said before. Before the first gulf war, Canada had no guided-missile capability. Our weapons and sensors and command capabilities are far beyond what they were 40 years ago. One of our greatest capabilities, which isn't mentioned in this article, is one which is a corner stone of modern navies; interoperabiltiy. Between the technology (Link 11/16), common practices, and frequent joint exercises, RCN units mesh seemlessly with USN task groups.

4. "The loss of the destroyers means the Navy can no longer defend a formation against long-range threats, nor can it provide effective command and control. Without replenishment ships, it’s now impossible to sustain the fleet with the necessary supplies, ammunition and fuel over any distance."

I won't get into tactics, i'll just say it again: interoperability. We can provide effective command and control, so just STFU Maclean's. Finally, the last sentence is also a load of horse crap. It is entirely possibly to provide the necessary "supplies, ammunition and fuel", and I say it again, interoperability.

5. the "Todd/Lindberg classification system"

This list a poorly researched ranking system. Indonesia doesn't have an AORs and has fewer major surface combatants than the RCN. Bangladesh has a few small in-harbour tankers and a small ageing AOR that I doubt they could deploy over seas. It's like they just scanned the internet and looks at the number and type of vessels each navy has, without looking into the more important details: training, capability, and state of repair.

6. this one doesn't really have to do with the article but people quotes in it: "...claims that fixing the Navy would be “just about the top priority” for a Liberal government." and "...Harris promised that improving Canada’s Navy would be a priority of an NDP government."

Yea, we'll see about that after the election.

7. "Many Canadians know that, at the end of the Second World War, the Canadian Navy was the fifth-largest in the world."

I hate hearing this one. Most of that Navy was corvettes and frigates with little to no ASuW or AAW capability. Within about 30 days of the end of the second world war, almost the entire fleet of corvettes and frigates were decommisioned, dropping us much, much, much farther down the list.

/end

I won't go on about what I think we could do to improve the situation. A governemnt department as big as Public Works is not something someone like me can look at from the outside and figure out how to do it better. I will say, that this country lacks the public passion for defence which would enable politicians to take defence spending and procurement seriously.

As I once heard it said, it took us less time to liberate a continent than it has taken us to move NDHQ to a new building 15km away.




« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 09:47:25 by Lumber »
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 206,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,725
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2015, 10:00:13 »
One of our greatest capabilities, which isn't mentioned in this article, is one which is a corner stone of modern navies; interoperabiltiy. Between the technology (Link 11/16), common practices, and frequent joint exercises, RCN units mesh seemlessly with USN task groups.
So, we are the USN farm team and can provide ships to support US goals?
What is the answer when our concerns do not mesh with something the US is willing to throw a task group at?

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,659
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #27 on: August 06, 2015, 10:09:37 »
So no area/TF-AD (does ESSM in the Mk48s really count?) and no integral replen isn't a bad situation?  ??? 



Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 429,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,082
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #28 on: August 06, 2015, 10:21:49 »
So no area/TF-AD (does ESSM in the Mk48s really count?) and no integral replen isn't a bad situation?  ???

No AD and no resupply.  Are we talking about the Navy or the Army?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,659
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2015, 10:28:23 »
No AD and no resupply.  Are we talking about the Navy or the Army?

Touché!


Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 107,274
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,972
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #30 on: August 06, 2015, 10:29:19 »
So, we are the USN farm team and can provide ships to support US goals?
What is the answer when our concerns do not mesh with something the US is willing to throw a task group at?

Haha USN Farm Team!  I love it!

Royal Canadian Navy, Johnstown Chiefs of World Navies



So no area/TF-AD (does ESSM in the Mk48s really count?) and no integral replen isn't a bad situation?  ??? 




Will have to let the Russians know we have no AD next time we enter the Black Sea so they stop incessantly buzzing us with those jets of theirs!

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #31 on: August 06, 2015, 10:31:26 »
Lumber, the USN has it's own challenges in meeting their own needs without us riding on their coat tails like a leech.  We need to be able to stand up on our own two legs.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,487
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #32 on: August 06, 2015, 10:32:27 »
(does ESSM in the Mk48s really count?) 

WTF ??? ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles) are considered point defence systems, not area air defence. But the Mk48? It's a heavy torpedo, which we don't even carry on ships, only submarines. On ships we carry the Mk46 light torp. So unless I am missing something here, the Mk48 don't carry their own ESSM  :nod:

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 107,274
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,972
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #33 on: August 06, 2015, 10:33:01 »
Touché!



He is clapping way too fast!  That one deserves a slow clap!




Lumber, the USN has it's own challenges in meeting their own needs without us riding on their coat tails like a leech.  We need to be able to stand up on our own two legs.

This is exactly what we have been talking about wrt us being our own worst enemy.  Lumber is looking to add another bar I think, even if it means lying about how awesome our gear is.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 10:36:52 by RoyalDrew »

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,659
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2015, 10:35:06 »
WTF ??? ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles) are considered point defence systems, not area air defence. But the Mk48? It's a heavy torpedo, which we don't even carry on ships, only submarines. On ships we carry the Mk46 light torp. So unless I am missing something here, the Mk48 don't carry their own ESSM  :nod:

I know, OGBD, that was the content of the parentheses.  ;) 

I should have also been clearer...I meant the Mk.48 vertical launcher for the CPF's SSM/future ESSM.

...Will have to let the Russians know we have no AD next time we enter the Black Sea so they stop incessantly buzzing us with those jets of theirs!

 :nod:

Well...there is SHORAD (SSM/ESSM to come) and CIWS, but as far as being the TF designated AD capability, that's no longer in our inventory.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 107,274
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,972
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2015, 10:42:58 »
I know, OGBD, that was the content of the parentheses.  ;) 

I should have also been clearer...I meant the Mk.48 vertical launcher for the CPF's SSM/future ESSM.

 :nod:

Well...there is SHORAD (SSM/ESSM to come) and CIWS, but as far as being the TF designated AD capability, that's no longer in our inventory.

I don't really count SHORAD as real AD.  At least not against a real Air Force.  Beside, effective Air Defence is all about layering of effects.  We can do no such thing.

Edit:  I know 80%+ Aircraft are usually killed by SHORAD systems but that's because you have other weapon systems that force the plane to come that low and also because smart-munitions didn't exist.  GPS guided bombs and missiles mean they have less utility because aircraft have more stand-off.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 11:01:40 by RoyalDrew »

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 429,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,082
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2015, 10:55:52 »
I don't really count SHORAD as real AD.  At least not against a real Air Force.  Beside, effective Air Defence is all about layering of effects.  We can do no such thing.

All arms air defence is the next layer - the boarding party firing their MP-5s at the inbound missile.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 107,274
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,972
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2015, 11:17:22 »
All arms air defence is the next layer - the boarding party firing their MP-5s at the inbound missile.

Lol I can see it now "Sir, I have organized my Air Defence into two layers, 8km and 100m".

You would think we might have learned something from one of our sister navies with recent combat experience (by Naval standards).


HMS Sheffield hit by Exocet Missile fired by Argentinian warplanes, Falklands War
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 11:24:14 by RoyalDrew »

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 180,281
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,916
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2015, 12:34:36 »
I'll roll in for a moment on this one...seems almost in my lane.

The original RIM-7 Sea Sparrow was truly a Point Defense only missile.  That means it'd be capable of shooting down a missile (or aircraft) that's pointed at our ship.

The upgraded RIM-162 ESSM is a much more capable system that is more capable against all types of targets.

Does that make it an AREA air defense capable system?  Nope.  Not in the least.  However, the Wikipedia (open source) info on ranges are as follows:

RIM-7 : 10 nm (19km)
RIM-162 : 27+ nm (50+ km)

Additionally, if we bought in, the RIM-162 has the ability to be put in a quad pack, instead of the single cell missiles, so instead of 16 cells holding 16 missiles, you could get 16 cells holding 64 missiles.  BIG leap.

All that said, the ESSM is faster, longer ranged, and more capable than the Sea Sparrow, but it is not considered an area defense capability such as the SM-2 missiles provided. 
(Note the SM-2's open source range is listed as 40-90 nm, (74-167 km) or 65-100 nm for the ER version)
NS
 
 
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-67_Standard
 
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 221,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,661
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2015, 12:46:07 »
Ouch. 

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-canadian-navy/

Indeed.

The best part? Only one small paragraph about the submarines, for a change  :nod:
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline drunknsubmrnr

  • Semper in Excreto
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 12,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 554
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2015, 12:48:44 »
You need a WDS and S-band data uplink (basically SM-2 capability) and a specific version of RIM-162 to get the full range out of it. Otherwise it's just a better Sea Sparrow.

You also need a Mk 41 launcher for the quad-pack. If you have a Mk 48 launcher you can only use single and IIRC dual packs.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 107,274
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,972
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2015, 13:06:51 »
I'll roll in for a moment on this one...seems almost in my lane.

The original RIM-7 Sea Sparrow was truly a Point Defense only missile.  That means it'd be capable of shooting down a missile (or aircraft) that's pointed at our ship.

The upgraded RIM-162 ESSM is a much more capable system that is more capable against all types of targets.

Does that make it an AREA air defense capable system?  Nope.  Not in the least.  However, the Wikipedia (open source) info on ranges are as follows:

RIM-7 : 10 nm (19km)
RIM-162 : 27+ nm (50+ km)

Additionally, if we bought in, the RIM-162 has the ability to be put in a quad pack, instead of the single cell missiles, so instead of 16 cells holding 16 missiles, you could get 16 cells holding 64 missiles.  BIG leap.

All that said, the ESSM is faster, longer ranged, and more capable than the Sea Sparrow, but it is not considered an area defense capability such as the SM-2 missiles provided. 
(Note the SM-2's open source range is listed as 40-90 nm, (74-167 km) or 65-100 nm for the ER version)
NS
 
 
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-67_Standard

The ranges of the RIM-162 seem impressive until you consider that some of the latest anti-ship missile ranges are three to four times that.  Exocet Block 3 missiles have a range of 97 nautical miles and are GPS guided which enables them to alter their direction of attack.

Interestingly, in 1982 HMS Sheffield was out front of main fleet looking for the Argentinians when it was hit by an Exocet.  It anticipated that it would see the Argentinians on radar before any missile launch was detected, which did not occur.  The Argentinians had detected the Sheffield via patrol aircraft and monitored it for about three hours before Super Etenards struck the Sheffield.  The only thing they picked up was the missile which impacted their ship five seconds after detection. 

We may be adequately prepared for some things we are doing now, i.e. Fisheries patrols, counter-narcotics, etc... But we aren't prepared for war which is what we should be focusing on.  Our Army and Navy are little more than a very well armed constabulary Atm.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,624
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,977
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #42 on: August 06, 2015, 13:36:55 »
In response to those who think I don't see the importance in Area AD and fleet-replenishment capability, let me clarify.

I don't disagree with the general theme of the article; the Canadian Navy has lost important capabilities and need to do something to get them back.

I was more arguing with how dire they make the situation look, and about some of the inaccuracies of their claims.

They say many things are impossible, but we are in fact doing them right now. During mission turnover, we have two ships deployed thousands of miles from home at the same time, with other ships conducting local/regional exercises or training. We have effective command and control. We have a limited capability (vice no capability) of defending a task group, thanks to the ESSM.

Is there work to be done? Absolutely. Are we hamstrung and relegated to patrolling our own waters? Absolultey not.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 180,281
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,916
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2015, 13:43:55 »
Back in the 90's the German Navy life-cycled their Exocets and upgraded to a newer version.

They cycled their old ones through a depot, removed the warheads and fueled them to fly 37 miles. 

Then they sent a group of ships down to the US Missile range at Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, in Peurto Rico.  They had some subs down at the same time too doing torpedo firings. 

They setup and fired their Exocets against a line of US/CAN/GER ships that were at a range of 40 miles from the launching unit (note the 3 mile buffer)

Memory is foggy but I think there were 30-40 Exocets fired, and each ship in line got a chance to fire back, some ships several times.  Pretty neat stuff.

Having longer range missiles is also only *REALLY* useful if you can identify a valid target that you can engage at that distance.  (Think USS Vincennes)

I've stood on the bridge of the USS Stark after she was rebuilt following her Exocet hit(s).  An interesting experience.

The retirement of our Destroyers has left us with a huge gap in air defense, but the upgrades to the Frigates have made them a much more capable platform.  Would it be nice to still have a long range AD capability?  Yup, fer sure!  Hopefully with the next generation of surface combattant we'll see that capability return. 

I'd like to think that we're more than just a well armed constabulary, but it's tough to find good arguements against that point.
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 206,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,725
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #44 on: August 06, 2015, 13:45:21 »
In response to those who think I don't see the importance in Area AD and fleet-replenishment capability, let me clarify.

I don't disagree with the general theme of the article; the Canadian Navy has lost important capabilities and need to do something to get them back.

I was more arguing with how dire they make the situation look, and about some of the inaccuracies of their claims.

They say many things are impossible, but we are in fact doing them right now. During mission turnover, we have two ships deployed thousands of miles from home at the same time, with other ships conducting local/regional exercises or training. We have effective command and control. We have a limited capability (vice no capability) of defending a task group, thanks to the ESSM.

Is there work to be done? Absolutely. Are we hamstrung and relegated to patrolling our own waters? Absolultey not.

So, would you agree with the article's idea that the RCN cannot independently conduct operations to support this nations interests?  Your entire counter-point was a defence around the idea that we can assist and be supported by a USN Task Group.

There was a time that we could do our own thing according to our own national prioreties.  I think he article is right.  That time is gone.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,624
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,977
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2015, 14:18:54 »
There was a time that we could do our own thing according to our own national prioreties.  I think he article is right.  That time is gone.

And when have we, ever, acted alone according to our own national priorities? Wether it was the Allies or NATO, the RCN has always worked in consort with other navies. I would love to be sailing as part of a Canadian task group with an AOR, an assault/helicopter carrier as HVU, an Area Air Defence unit serving as goal keeper, and a screen of ASW/ASuW ships. When we had the 280s and AORs working, we could do this. But how often did we ever do this? The largest task group that I can find that actually deployed (and I'm not claiming this is the only one or the biggest), was in 2001 when we deployed a CPF, a 280 and an AOR all together to the middle east. But wait, did they act alone, according to "national priorities". No, they worked in cosort with a multinational task group. My point? It's nice to be able to (theoretically) do anything and everything by ourselves. In reality, that's very expensive, and we've never actually done it before. Think we could pull off a Falklands conflict RN style? Never. Better to be good at one thing than mediocre at a whole bunch of things. Maybe?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 206,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,725
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2015, 14:39:56 »
We do not have to do everything alone, but we should be able to exercise our interests independantly.  If the purpose of the RCN is to provide ships to the USN, then we do not have a navy ... we just fund a USN farm team (and secede some sovereignty)

But what happens when Canada wants to do something and the US is disinterested, busy or opposed?  Consider our involvement to resolve the Suez Crisis.  Consider the first Gulf War where the Canadian task group had its own AOR.  Consider arctic sovereignty where some of our conflict is with the US. 

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,624
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,977
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2015, 15:00:34 »
Consider arctic sovereignty where some of our conflict is with the US. 

...you want to go toe-to-toe with the USN over arctic sovereignty?

:clubinhand: vs.  :panzer:
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 15:14:18 by Lumber »
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,926
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2015, 15:47:38 »
they will show up with their wunderboat LCS, for sure  ;D

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans
« Reply #49 on: August 06, 2015, 15:51:13 »
 :clubinhand:  ??  more like    :nana:   or     :surrender: