Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 429034 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1200 on: October 05, 2018, 21:07:37 »
Fascinating, thanks guys.  So, a ship doing some ASW training over off the UK is Force Generation and responds to its naval chain of command.  It could, the next day, be chopped to CJOC and deployed to the Med for Force Employment.

Yes, pretty much.  The coming exercise in Europe (unclass sched) has Halifax, Toronto and VDQ all working there.  VDQ is on "deployment".  Toronto and Halifax are on workups to get to higher readiness tiers.  VDQ could be called off for NATO and depending on equipment loadout Toronto or Halifax could be redirected to a real operation immediately (ie: Swiss Air Disaster).  It wouldn't be the first time a RCN asset has gotten a rapid addition of kit and supplies to go do a mission.

My OC from 2PPCLI once mentioned some envy with the RCN until Afghanistan, were far more operationally capable then the army.  As soon as a ship leaves the wall you are essentially on operations, intensity may vary...

Again, I'm assuming there is a spectrum of risk for operational employment based on how much of the "readiness training" a ship has done in Force Generation.  Is there formal events where "Sea Training" comes down to "check ride" a ship?

Yes they are called IMSRTs (lazily pronounced emserts) or traditionally "workups".  IIRC there are other levels/variations of "workups" but the final hurdle to high readiness are IMSRTs.

Coles Notes Version: Sea Trainers embark on a ship and supervise/assist with the delivery of Combat Readiness Requirements that cover everything from damage control rounds, multiple attacks on the ship, to pyrotechnic demonstrations and training.  Certain % of different trades and positions must be present to get that CRR checked off the list.  Some are individual, some are team, some are ship CRR's.  This is done over the course of about 20 days at sea, with some CRR's being able to get written off before the formal IMSRTs depending on the ships training schedule (ie: may already have qualified with the 57mm gun shoot during recent trials). 

Sea Training are also there to help the ship through IMSRTs by implementing training, giving tips/advice from their senior experienced people and coach you along.  This philosophy may be new to some old salts, but its the direction that they are heading right now.  The kick in the pants option is still there but not the prefered way to start with.

Their evaluation of the ship on IMSRTs and recommendation holds a lot of weight with the Admiral on whether a ship can deploy and in some cases may lead to the replacement of key positions if those pers are not performing to standard.

Personally I believe that the Sea Training organization is one of the main reasons RCN ships on deployment are looked upon as valuable and key performers in multinational operations despite perhaps equipment age or limitations in some cases.  They work hard to create SOP's and standards and then ensure the fleet meets those high standards and follows the SOP's.  They can be a bit stodgy and slow to change sometimes but they are an extremely important part of Force Generation.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2018, 21:35:25 by Underway »

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1201 on: October 06, 2018, 18:05:24 »

I could live with Canada having a fleet something like this:

12-15 x CSCs
12 x Corvettes
6 x AOPS
8-12 x MCM's
2 x Asterix
2 x JSS
6-8 x SSKs

I like the list, but it seems a bit ambitious for the RCN at this point. For myself, I’d like to see:

13-14 CSC
6-7 140-180’ Armed Cutter for OPV
6 AOPS
6-8 MCDV refit and fully eqpt for MCM
2 ASTERIX (crewed by FFS)
2 PRO CLASS AORS
7 SSK

I think this is a reasonable and attainable fleet mix for the RCN. I don’t think it’s likely, however.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,206
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,039
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1202 on: October 06, 2018, 18:48:16 »
Reality check on the fleet - I'll be happy if we get 15x CSC...the rest...not a priority for any government that's been in power in years.

I honestly do not expect to see steel cut on a CSC while I'm still in uniform.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1203 on: October 06, 2018, 23:36:24 »
Reality check on the fleet - I'll be happy if we get 15x CSC...the rest...not a priority for any government that's been in power in years.

I honestly do not expect to see steel cut on a CSC while I'm still in uniform.

NS

I understand your skepticism, though, as a civilian, I haven’t had to live with the lack of adequate equipment the way that you have. It’s really too bad, because I think my “fantasy list” above isn’t really too outlandish. It’s lesser in scope than what the RAN is in the process of achieving, though our situations are quite different in geopolitical terms. 

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,055
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1204 on: October 07, 2018, 20:06:23 »
8 CSC in the form of Destroyers with AAD and land strike.
6 AOPS with significantly enhanced surveillance kit (EW/ESM/SIGINT)
4 MCDV
4 SSK
2 JSS
1 Asterix
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 20:09:38 by whiskey601 »
Living the lean life

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 803
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1205 on: October 07, 2018, 20:15:38 »
Whiskey...

Your ideal fleet looks pretty similar to the fleet we already have.  Why minus the 7 CSC and 8 MCDV in your fleet, when the rest of the fleet is what we have now?  (Just curious)
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1206 on: October 07, 2018, 21:11:55 »
8 CSC in the form of Destroyers with AAD and land strike.

So this is interesting.  For ages now I have been saying all indications are that the ships will have the ability to be modified for AAW or GP variants.  Apparently I was wrong according to the government's recent information releases.

All the ships will be the same variant with the ability for AAW, GP or other things with all essentially the same sensors.  This is an interesting choice.  There are pro's and cons to this approach, and I wonder if doctrine has a say here.  The flexibility of new sensors and plug and play systems really change the game.  Strike length VLS add weapons/role flexibility.  With the right sensor suit you can easily switch between Task Group Air Defence to Self Defence missiles, or Strike missiles, or even ASROC. 

The idea that all the ships in a TG (4 by doctrine) could do AAW and protect each other, and still have a good ASW capability compared to a specialized AAW destroyer and 3 GP frigates.  Which grouping would be more effective?  There is certainly more flexibility/redundancy in the former TG design, but the later TG design is a proven concept and specialized ships one would assume perform better at their specific tasks.

I also wonder if this is a specific decision by the CAF/RCN to shield its A. Budget (one class of ship is easier to manage maint wise) and B. prevent capability loss like what happened with the 280's.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,055
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1207 on: October 07, 2018, 23:08:26 »
Whiskey...

Your ideal fleet looks pretty similar to the fleet we already have.  Why minus the 7 CSC and 8 MCDV in your fleet, when the rest of the fleet is what we have now?  (Just curious)

I feel that 15 ships is no better than 8. Either way  it's a still a small navy.

And I'm  thinking of ships we can actually crew in 10 years without shooting for the moon.
 I would hope the CSC is a maximum effort, all round capable ship that can bring the fight to the enemy as part of a coalition (and win it in their waters). That means fighting in every dimension with devastating ability.
Accordingly, in order to remain a small blue water navy, something would have to drastically shift, I would think that would be fewer blue water surface surface combat fleet hulls and placing all of the roles of the Kingston class (except MCM) onto a potentially upgraded version of the AOP's with a significant surveillance and communications/data sharing suite.

Cheers

Edit: implicit in that model is removal of the 4 ship TG from future doctrine.  It's 1 or 2 plus a tanker or JSS. There would be no independent power projection, but there would be an opportunity to significantly swing the balance of capability to an allied TF.  A Type 26+++ ship.




« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 23:16:07 by whiskey601 »
Living the lean life

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,215
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1208 on: October 07, 2018, 23:26:14 »
I feel that 15 ships is no better than 8. Either way  it's a still a small navy.

Well in the context of the world's fleet of large surface combatants, 15 actually puts us in pretty good standing in terms of numbers.

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 55,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 619
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1209 on: October 08, 2018, 09:03:27 »
I feel that 15 ships is no better than 8. Either way  it's a still a small navy.

And I'm  thinking of ships we can actually crew in 10 years without shooting for the moon.
 I would hope the CSC is a maximum effort, all round capable ship that can bring the fight to the enemy as part of a coalition (and win it in their waters). That means fighting in every dimension with devastating ability.
Accordingly, in order to remain a small blue water navy, something would have to drastically shift, I would think that would be fewer blue water surface surface combat fleet hulls and placing all of the roles of the Kingston class (except MCM) onto a potentially upgraded version of the AOP's with a significant surveillance and communications/data sharing suite.

Cheers

Edit: implicit in that model is removal of the 4 ship TG from future doctrine.  It's 1 or 2 plus a tanker or JSS. There would be no independent power projection, but there would be an opportunity to significantly swing the balance of capability to an allied TF.  A Type 26+++ ship.

I'd argue that cutting back the CSC's to 8 hulls effectively takes the RCN out of the blue water navy category in a major war.  With only four combatant hulls on each coast and accounting for less than 100% availability at any time that leaves less than one doctrinal Task Group to defend each of our entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. 

You suggest cutting the Task Group size in half (or even to a single ship), but even if that is sound doctrine (I have no idea the implications of that, I'll leave it to the experts to comment) it still leaves a maximum of 4 x warships to defend each of our coasts.  That leaves zero ships with which to project power and therefore effectively no blue water capability.  And as has been pointed out by several experienced naval types in this forum the AOPS, no matter how much lipstick you choose to put on them in terms of extra sensors or bolt on weapons, is not and never will be a combatant. 

I'd argue that if we only get 12 x CSCs giving us 6 per coast for a single TG plus spares, or one 4-ship Task Group per coast for coastal defence and a third 4-ship Task Group for deployment it is not enough for what we'll need in a major war.  15 x CSCs is probably the absolute minimum number of combatants we would need in a real shooting war giving us two 3-ship TG's for defence of Canadian territorial waters on each coast and a 3-ship TG for deployment.  I think even that leaves us paper thin and doesn't take into account any losses or less than 100% availability.

That's why if I were PM for a day I would like to see something like 12 x ASW capable corvette-type minor combatants added to the fleet to supplement the CSCs.  And while even if we were to increase our defence budget to the 2% of GDP goal it may seem like shooting for the stars, as I noted in my original post I'd be willing to give up some other capabilities in order to fund that.  Because to be totally honest, having the naval capability to ensure that US military reinforcements and supplies reach a conflict zone will have much greater military benefit in a major war than putting a Canadian Brigade Group on the ground would.

 :2c:


Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,595
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1210 on: October 09, 2018, 22:46:58 »
Why look at just surface vessels in that case? what if we had 12 submarines added to the mix? 6 per coast, or 3 or 4 per task group that you created here GR66. Operating as 2 sub wolf packs would be able to patrol a large area on top of a surface fleet.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,318
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1211 on: October 09, 2018, 23:22:34 »
Why look at just surface vessels in that case? what if we had 12 submarines added to the mix? 6 per coast, or 3 or 4 per task group that you created here GR66. Operating as 2 sub wolf packs would be able to patrol a large area on top of a surface fleet.

Submariners are allergic to each other. They work alone- not in packs.

Offline DetectiveMcNulty

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,487
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1212 on: October 10, 2018, 00:23:46 »
That's a good thing because I'm sure in a few years we will only have one anyways...

 ;D

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,318
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1213 on: October 10, 2018, 00:43:51 »
That's a good thing because I'm sure in a few years we will only have one anyways...

 ;D

Do you have any, actual, first hand knowledge of Canada's submarine program?

I do.

The most difficult class of Submarine that I have ever worked against is the Victoria Class. Period, full stop.

« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 00:46:51 by SeaKingTacco »

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 112,589
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,028
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1214 on: October 10, 2018, 03:00:49 »
The problem with most peoples views concerning the Navy in Canada is that they neglect to take in to consideration that we need two separate fleets based on simple geography and that these fleets cannot mutually support each other.

With this in mind, eight Major Warships split between two coasts is not enough as it leaves you with zero flexibility in emergencies.  The bare minimum is probably 12 and this is the absolute bare minimum. 

It is the same with Submarines.  We probably don't have enough right now and simple arithmetic tells me bare minimum is probably six with three per coast, eight would be better but six is doable. 
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 10:39:05 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,024
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,078
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1215 on: October 10, 2018, 07:05:05 »
It is the same with Submarines.  We probably don't have enough right now and simple arithmetic tells me bare minimum is probably six with three per coast, four would be better but six is doable.

Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you could make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.
"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!

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 55,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 619
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1216 on: October 10, 2018, 07:13:33 »
Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you could make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.

Is there some major design flaw in Chinese subs which doesn’t allow them to work in the Atlantic in case of a war?

 ;)

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 731
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1217 on: October 10, 2018, 08:25:45 »
Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you could make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.
  If this were the case, you could home port everything on one coast and have half the fleet.  Problem with that is transit time.  The northwest passage, regardless of what Al Gore says, is not navigable most of the time so responding to a 'hot spot' on the other coast would require circumnavigating NA through Panama.  If Panama is closed or blocked you have two choices: global circumnavigation or down around SA.  Both options would require significant time and support such as a fleet tanker and we only have one.  What Humphrey wrote is true.  We need two complete fleets including two submarine fleets and what we have now is probably the bare minimum we should ever consider.  Plus the support vessels of course.

Online JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 59
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1218 on: October 10, 2018, 10:33:49 »
Considering factors such as difficulty for manning and budget, IMHO Canada should soon procure 4 ocean and arctic capable submarines. With soon I mean to be operative by mid 2020s (around 2025).

Then... on a longer term, with about 5 years delay or as much as the Victoria class can be operative, a second program for about 8 more, coastal type, submarines. These would replace the Victoria class and make a submarine total fleet of 12 with the previous ones.

In my perspective, the first batch of 4 ocean-going submarines would allow for:
- one deployed either in Arctic or Pacific
- another one ready or also deployed in the same areas.
- third in preparation for operations or minor maintenance
- 4th in major maintenance or refit.

The Victoria class would then cover the coasts and be used for training.

For this 4 Arctic boats I see several  options: British Astute class (nuclear), French Barracuda (either nuke or AIP as for RAN), German type 216 (which is merely a design on paper) and Japanese Soryu.

For several reasons, including diversification of suppliers and to help our allies to maintain a sustainable defence industry, my favourite option would be the japanese, provided necessary modifications are introduced to cope with Arctic requirements (ice-breaking & submerged endurance).

There should be as well some kind of return to canadian industry.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,024
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,078
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1219 on: October 10, 2018, 10:34:40 »
  If this were the case, you could home port everything on one coast and have half the fleet.  Problem with that is transit time.  The northwest passage, regardless of what Al Gore says, is not navigable most of the time so responding to a 'hot spot' on the other coast would require circumnavigating NA through Panama.  If Panama is closed or blocked you have two choices: global circumnavigation or down around SA.  Both options would require significant time and support such as a fleet tanker and we only have one.  What Humphrey wrote is true.  We need two complete fleets including two submarine fleets and what we have now is probably the bare minimum we should ever consider.  Plus the support vessels of course.

No, that is not true at all. You could NOT home port the entire fleet on one coast. We have an actual demonstrated need for surface vessels on both coasts. The same cannot be as easily said about a submarine force.

Canada could carry on with a navy that has NO submarines at all; we could not carry on with a navy of ONLY submarines.

Ergo, while it would be nice to have a large enough navy and submarine force to have subs not only based, but operating simultaneously on both coasts, it is not imperative to our national interests for it to be so.

We could get on just fine by having all our subs on one coast. Not so with the surface fleet.
"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 Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,055
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1220 on: October 10, 2018, 10:40:02 »
I'd argue that cutting back the CSC's to 8 hulls effectively takes the RCN out of the blue water navy category in a major war.  With only four combatant hulls on each coast and accounting for less than 100% availability at any time that leaves less than one doctrinal Task Group to defend each of our entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. 

You suggest cutting the Task Group size in half (or even to a single ship), but even if that is sound doctrine (I have no idea the implications of that, I'll leave it to the experts to comment) it still leaves a maximum of 4 x warships to defend each of our coasts.  That leaves zero ships with which to project power and therefore effectively no blue water capability.  And as has been pointed out by several experienced naval types in this forum the AOPS, no matter how much lipstick you choose to put on them in terms of extra sensors or bolt on weapons, is not and never will be a combatant.

I'd argue that if we only get 12 x CSCs giving us 6 per coast for a single TG plus spares, or one 4-ship Task Group per coast for coastal defence and a third 4-ship Task Group for deployment it is not enough for what we'll need in a major war.  15 x CSCs is probably the absolute minimum number of combatants we would need in a real shooting war giving us two 3-ship TG's for defence of Canadian territorial waters on each coast and a 3-ship TG for deployment.  I think even that leaves us paper thin and doesn't take into account any losses or less than 100% availability.

That's why if I were PM for a day I would like to see something like 12 x ASW capable corvette-type minor combatants added to the fleet to supplement the CSCs.  And while even if we were to increase our defence budget to the 2% of GDP goal it may seem like shooting for the stars, as I noted in my original post I'd be willing to give up some other capabilities in order to fund that.  Because to be totally honest, having the naval capability to ensure that US military reinforcements and supplies reach a conflict zone will have much greater military benefit in a major war than putting a Canadian Brigade Group on the ground would.

 :2c:

All good points and probably quite valid.  With respect to the colourized bit above, I'm actually suggesting that there be no Canada Task Group at all. We can send one or 2 ships to some other Task Group. I realize quite well this is a complete departure from established traditions and operating principles of the RCN, but I will wager that in 20 years the surface fleet will not be much different than what I have set out above. 15 ships (which the RCN and the government state are a minimum) is as much a number as 88 fighters when we plan on only deploying 6 fighters at a time.
Also, the type of surface ship, the principal surface combatant, would be something far more capable than the Type 26 in its current form. Land strike, surface strike, NGS, ASW, AAW, EW, BMD. Not "fitted for" or "planned" but actually fitted out completely.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 10:45:41 by whiskey601 »
Living the lean life

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,055
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1221 on: October 10, 2018, 10:43:36 »
Is there some major design flaw in Chinese subs which doesn’t allow them to work in the Atlantic in case of a war?

 ;)
Good one. If they ever started routine submarine deployments in the Atlantic, the USN would snap!! I do expect them in the arctic soon, if they haven't been there already via submarine.
Living the lean life

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 55,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 619
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1222 on: October 10, 2018, 11:14:36 »
Good one. If they ever started routine submarine deployments in the Atlantic, the USN would snap!! I do expect them in the arctic soon, if they haven't been there already via submarine.

Germany sent commerce raiders into the Pacific during both World Wars.  They also had submarines deployed in the Pacific and Indian oceans during WW2.  In case of conflict it would make sense for China to send even one or two subs into the Atlantic.  The uncertainty they would raise would force the US/NATO to keep ships there in order to try and track them down instead of being able to send them to support the main effort in the Pacific.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 252
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1223 on: October 10, 2018, 11:17:05 »
Good one. If they ever started routine submarine deployments in the Atlantic, the USN would snap!! I do expect them in the arctic soon, if they haven't been there already via submarine.

All they need to do is to negotiate access to a naval base in Venezuela and viola, Chinese ships/subs in the Atlantic....don't think that it can't happen.
Realistically they would most likely establish a naval base somewhere in the Indian Ocean and maybe Africa first before creating one in Venezuela, oh wait, they've done that already in Sri Lanka and Djibouti.   

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 112,589
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,028
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1224 on: October 10, 2018, 11:22:06 »
Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you could make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.

But then you are making the assumption that Subs are only being used for that one specific mission, which I don't think is a good assumption to make.

The Aussies can homeport their submarine force in one location because not only do they have more subs, they also are an island and you can sail around to the otherside relatively quickly.  A Submarine can leave Perth today and be in Sydney in under 10 days.

We have no such luxury, a sub moving from Victoria to Halifax would probably take a minimum of 30 days to get there if they go through Panama. If Panama isn't an option, it is probably close to 80 days to go around Cape of Good Hope. 

Either way, we need two separate fleets with a General Purpose Combat Capability across the spectrums of Sub-Surface, Surface and Air Warfare.

All good points and probably quite valid.  With respect to the colourized bit above, I'm actually suggesting that there be no Canada Task Group at all. We can send one or 2 ships to some other Task Group. I realize quite well this is a complete departure from established traditions and operating principles of the RCN, but I will wager that in 20 years the surface fleet will not be much different than what I have set out above. 15 ships (which the RCN and the government state are a minimum) is as much a number as 88 fighters when we plan on only deploying 6 fighters at a time.
Also, the type of surface ship, the principal surface combatant, would be something far more capable than the Type 26 in its current form. Land strike, surface strike, NGS, ASW, AAW, EW, BMD. Not "fitted for" or "planned" but actually fitted out completely.


I still think eight ships isn't enough and the ships you are talking about getting considering the Capabilities you mentioned, would be akin to a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser.  I reckon we would need a substantial budgetary increase to man those ships and they would be totally unsuitable for many tasks our Navy has to carry out.


« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 13:22:27 by Humphrey Bogart »