New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Underway]

As long as they keep the Type 26 hull/machinery and general layout, they will all be "CSC's", just like all 20 of the old steamers were considered "St-Laurent's" even though they were in fact four different batches (7xST-LAURENT, 7X RESTIGOUCHE, 4X MACKENZIE, 2X ANNAPOLIS), or just as the various batches of American Arleigh Burke are all "Arleigh Burke" vessels. As I have mentioned before, it's the hull/power plant/general compartment layout that makes the class, not the combat system/weapons loadout combination.

So explain the Spruance Class vs the Ticonderogo Class then. Same hull and same powerplant. Completely different weapons and sensors. Though I suppose you could argue that the internal compartment layout had to change because of all the VLS that needed to be placed on the Tico's. But then we're in a chicken-egg situation because the weapon/sensor changes forced a compartmental change.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to drill down to get the answer. Or is this a US vs Canada labeling system difference.

 

[lenaitch]

The Ferry's that sail between North Sydney and Newfoundland most certainly can and I would even say the Fundy Rose could go in Summer waters. I have sailed the Fundy Rose and its quite Comfortable and sails at 20 Knots. It could carry all the vehicles and gear for an Armoured Recce Squadron. I agree that the Coast Guard personnel have a very different work culture but the CCG Leonard Cowley has participated in Nanook exercises. Whats to stop the leadership of the Coast Guard to lead on this?

I think over time certain ships could be enticed to participate as an auxiliary to begin to change the Civil service mindset to an Auxiliary Navy one. Pay incentives with younger crews could start the process.

Not a sailor so I will take your word for the seaworthiness of the ferries.

Regarding the Coast Guard, it's not just "work culture". As currently constituted, it is a civilian service. They have neither the authority, training or equipment to fire a shot in anger, let alone be a position to survive somebody shooting back. The employee's union might have thoughts as well.

 

[Dana381]

Rather than commandeer ferries if shit goes down wouldn't we be better served with a fleet of merchant mariner crewed transport ships? In peace time we could use them for supplying Arctic stations and remote villages. Supplying humanitarian aid around the world and ferrying military equipment back and forth to operations in Europe, Asia, Australia and Africa.

It would be a good place to train up Sailors as well. Trudeau could build 6 such transports capable of multiple cargo types. They would fall under military spending and make NATO happy. They could be equipped to provide emergency medical services when needed, maybe by adding mission kits. He could then sell them to Canadians as humanitarian ships. They could ferry relief supplies and rebuilding equipment to disaster areas. There is always somewhere that needs help.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not a sailor so I will take your word for the seaworthiness of the ferries.

Regarding the Coast Guard, it's not just "work culture". As currently constituted, it is a civilian service. They have neither the authority, training or equipment to fire a shot in anger, let alone be a position to survive somebody shooting back. The employee's union might have thoughts as well.

As I have said before you need to slowly step up the CCG to the "armed" role. I suggest two .50cals on each of the big ships. They can be trained by a roving team of qualified reservists and training can take place during the usual crew cycles. Their role is mostly to support other agencies boarding parties using the CCG ship. This gets the crew trained and your likely looking at less than $100,000 per ship for guns, mounts, comms and equipment/ammunition lockers.
The big challenge will be training the Capts and deck officers in the use of force and ROE's. This will start a culture shift. It will also be tied mainly to policing duties, both criminal and fisheries. You can add a requirement that future large CCG ships have mounting and supporting infrastructure for larger weapons/self defense systems in case of war.

 

[Stoker]

As I have said before you need to slowly step up the CCG to the "armed" role. I suggest two .50cals on each of the big ships. They can be trained by a roving team of qualified reservists and training can take place during the usual crew cycles. Their role is mostly to support other agencies boarding parties using the CCG ship. This gets the crew trained and your likely looking at less than $100,000 per ship for guns, mounts, comms and equipment/ammunition lockers.
The big challenge will be training the Capts and deck officers in the use of force and ROE's. This will start a culture shift. It will also be tied mainly to policing duties, both criminal and fisheries. You can add a requirement that future large CCG ships have mounting and supporting infrastructure for larger weapons/self defense systems in case of war.

At some point didn't the CG have several ships equipped and trained for . 50 Cal for fisheries? I would think any implementation large scale of moving the CG to an armed force would be met with resistance from the public, unions, rank and file and politically. Some would accept it but many wouldn't what about those? I also think your estimate of $100, 000 per ship is low. The training would need to be done ashore first and then at sea with a training organization like Sea training. To say a roving team of reservists for training is simplistic at best.

 

[Rainbow1910]

At some point didn't the CG have several ships equipped and trained for . 50 Cal for fisheries? I would think any implementation large scale of moving the CG to an armed force would be met with resistance from the public, unions, rank and file and politically. Some would accept it but many wouldn't what about those? I also think your estimate of $100, 000 per ship is low. The training would need to be done ashore first and then at sea with a training organization like Sea training. To say a roving team of reservists for training is simplistic at best.

A lot of this came about during the Turbot War and isn't incredibly clear but from what I have gathered, these armed vessels were either chartered from the CCG by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or had its enforcement personnel aboard operating those weapons as a sort of loophole. I very well could be wrong and would appreciate any corrections, I've been curious about such a thing myself for quite sometime.

 

[lenaitch]

Up-arming and authorizing the CG for law enforcement in our territorial waters is one thing, but the proposal was for escort of military-tasked ships on the high seas in times of conflict or tension. Given the range of sensors and weapons an adversary would have, I don't see how that would end well; although it would likely end quickly.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So explain the Spruance Class vs the Ticonderogo Class then. Same hull and same powerplant. Completely different weapons and sensors. Though I suppose you could argue that the internal compartment layout had to change because of all the VLS that needed to be placed on the Tico's. But then we're in a chicken-egg situation because the weapon/sensor changes forced a compartmental change.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to drill down to get the answer. Or is this a US vs Canada labeling system difference.

I have had the pleasure of touring both of these classes in a past life. While they used the same hull and power plant for propulsion, even the engineering spaces where different because the Tico's needed a huge amount of extra power for the radar and ops spaces compared to the Spruance. If you served on one of these - Spruance or Tico, you would get lost in the other one because general arrangement of spaces was completely different. Also, while having the same hull form, the Tico's were much bigger, almost 25% bigger than the Spruace in terms of displacement.

At some point didn't the CG have several ships equipped and trained for . 50 Cal for fisheries?

Historically, you could say that the CCG, being who it is, actually killed the idea of armed CCG ships after it inherited them.

Lets review the evolution of Fisheries Service in Canada: For the longest time - predating even the creation of the Canadian Navy - Canada had a fisheries service that employed armed vessel. It was a para-military organization and it's vessels were incorporated into the RCN during war time and then reassigned to the Fisheries Protection Service at other times. Their ships had grey hulls and, after WWII were armed with mostly .50 cal MG and personnel weapons for the Fisheries officers. It all started to go downhill some time in the late 1970's early 80's after Ottawa paper pushers decided to merge them with the Ocean Research Department, a definitely merchant mariner and government scientists in outlook organization, to become Fisheries and Ocean Canada. That didn't go well with the Fisheries para-military types, but at least, at first, they got to keep their grey hulls and weapons. However, as more and more of the "driving" of the ships was taken over by merchant mariners and the inspection duties started to fall on a smaller number of "fisheries inspectors", there was some pressure to stop arming the ships, and some of the most recent addition to the fisheries protection ships, such as the Louisbourg, were taken in service without weapons. The last straw came when the Fisheries and Ocean Department was itself taken over by Transport Canada and was merged into the coast guard. The fisheries vessels lost their grey hulls, to be rebranded into the CCG red and white livery, and the CCG personnel refused to train into use of weapons, leading to their final removal. Nowadays, the fisheries inspectors are basically just driven around by the CCG and they are the only one carrying personnel weapons during inspections.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The 40mm Boforsin my regiment museum came from the DFO base in Pat Bay. It was still crated when we got it and was meant to be mounted on one of their ships.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

At some point didn't the CG have several ships equipped and trained for . 50 Cal for fisheries? I would think any implementation large scale of moving the CG to an armed force would be met with resistance from the public, unions, rank and file and politically. Some would accept it but many wouldn't what about those? I also think your estimate of $100, 000 per ship is low. The training would need to be done ashore first and then at sea with a training organization like Sea training. To say a roving team of reservists for training is simplistic at best.

I am not sure the current costs of the guns, but the mounts are simple and you need two lockers for the guns and ammunition. Possible a comms system at the mount.
Yes there would be some resistance. But that would be normal for any major change. You should have seen the resistance when they merged the fleets, twas the end of the world for some, just as going from a 5 day week to a 28 day cycle for the buoy tender was.

For training, It's not that that complex of a system and dry training and firing can be done while the ship is underway.

 

[GR66]

I am not sure the current costs of the guns, but the mounts are simple and you need two lockers for the guns and ammunition. Possible a comms system at the mount.
Yes there would be some resistance. But that would be normal for any major change. You should have seen the resistance when they merged the fleets, twas the end of the world for some, just as going from a 5 day week to a 28 day cycle for the buoy tender was.

For training, It's not that that complex of a system and dry training and firing can be done while the ship is underway.

Have the ships equipped with the mounts/lockers/comms, etc. but when required have the guns manned by embarked military crews (Reservists?)? Just like the CCG embarks science teams, fisheries officers, RCMP, etc. to conduct specific tasks that are not within the CCG's specific scope.

 

[Stoker]

I am not sure the current costs of the guns, but the mounts are simple and you need two lockers for the guns and ammunition. Possible a comms system at the mount.
Yes there would be some resistance. But that would be normal for any major change. You should have seen the resistance when they merged the fleets, twas the end of the world for some, just as going from a 5 day week to a 28 day cycle for the buoy tender was.

For training, It's not that that complex of a system and dry training and firing can be done while the ship is underway.

Sorry just don't buy that it be easy as you think it would be. If you are talking about naval style training, qualifications and ammunition storage as I assume this would be, there is way more to it than you think.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Have the ships equipped with the mounts/lockers/comms, etc. but when required have the guns manned by embarked military crews (Reservists?)? Just like the CCG embarks science teams, fisheries officers, RCMP, etc. to conduct specific tasks that are not within the CCG's specific scope.

You need MOU's and additional training for the reservist and bunkspace. Not to mention the tasking might have only hours of notice. Training the crews to fire and maintain them is the easy part. A lot of them already own guns. The hard part is getting the seniors ranks to accept the new responsibilities. Some won't and will not use the new powers. Some will. But it means that the new deck officers coming up, become accustomed to be a Para-Constabulary force. This is the way towards a more robust mandate for the CCG. The CCG itself was an amalgamation of Marine Services and RCAF components in 1962. Then in the 90's the forced amalgamation of the three fleets. So they are not unaccustomed to large changes in structure and mandate. There will also need to be some legal changes made and new regulations, polices made as well.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sorry just don't buy that it be easy as you think it would be. If you are talking about naval style training, qualifications and ammunition storage as I assume this would be, there is way more to it than you think.

Storing a thousand rounds of .50cal ammo is a lot safer than storing a whole whack of drums of Jet B or commercial explosive onboard. Not everyone needs to follow the dysfunction of the military. Training and mandates would be streamlined to fit the needs and resources of the Department.

 

[Stoker]

Storing a thousand rounds of .50cal ammo is a lot safer than storing a whole whack of drums of Jet B or commercial explosive onboard. Not everyone needs to follow the dysfunction of the military. Training and mandates would be streamlined to fit the needs and resources of the Department.

If you want to make it a true armed enforcement agency like the USCG then those standards you should have. If you want to slap a few .50 Cals on the ship and give er, then I'll speak for the Navy and say we don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

[Kirkhill]

Oceanex and their three ships also supply Newf. There's an old saying in Newfoundland that all a man needs to survive is a punt, a Pig and a Patch. In my experience Newfs are just a tougher bunch and very adaptable but yes that's no reason to starve anyone.
Keep in mind that at this time of year the CN fleets priorities are tourists and Grocery Trailers . The building supplies I sell get there when they get there. If Putin exhibited any more stupid and crossed the Polish border would the Government not look at all options to move Gagetown to Latvia ASAP? In the end you go with what you got.

This is getting interesting.

So, in addition to the Marine Atlantic fleet

Highlander
Blue Puttees
Atlantic Vision
Leif Ericson

Bay Ferries

Fundy Rose

There is also Oceanex's

Connaigra
Sanderling

As well as CTMA serving the Magdalens with

Madeleine II
Vacancier

That is 9 ocean-going RoPax ferries on the east coast, some with ice-strengthened hulls. And there are at least two more routes that could be serviced -

The Cat between Bar Harbor ( or Bah Hahbah if you prefer) and Yahmuth could be converted to a similar RoPax.
The service that CTMA used to supply year round from Montreal and Matane to the Magdalens.
NEAS could also probably put a couple of ice-strengthened RoPax units to service Iqaluit, the Labrador and Greenland.

Call that 12 commercial RoPax units with viable business cases, even if they are subsidized. Add another 4 units to that fleet so that there is surplus capacity available to support military operations when necessary. That capacity would likely be available in any case for the part of the year when the harbours are iced up.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If you want to make it a true armed enforcement agency like the USCG then those standards you should have. If you want to slap a few .50 Cals on the ship and give er, then I'll speak for the Navy and say we don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

The purpose of the .50cals is to train management and senior people into the responsibilities that come with it that abilty to use force. Rules and regs will most likley follow or use as a basis RCMP and Fisheries enforcement policies.

 

[DBNSG]

This is getting interesting.

So, in addition to the Marine Atlantic fleet

Highlander
Blue Puttees
Atlantic Vision
Leif Ericson

Bay Ferries

Fundy Rose

There is also Oceanex's

Connaigra
Sanderling

As well as CTMA serving the Magdalens with

Madeleine II
Vacancier

That is 9 ocean-going RoPax ferries on the east coast, some with ice-strengthened hulls. And there are at least two more routes that could be serviced -

The Cat between Bar Harbor ( or Bah Hahbah if you prefer) and Yahmuth could be converted to a similar RoPax.
The service that CTMA used to supply year round from Montreal and Matane to the Magdalens.
NEAS could also probably put a couple of ice-strengthened RoPax units to service Iqaluit, the Labrador and Greenland.

Call that 12 commercial RoPax units with viable business cases, even if they are subsidized. Add another 4 units to that fleet so that there is surplus capacity available to support military operations when necessary. That capacity would likely be available in any case for the part of the year when the harbours are iced up.

Better check the Cat as I think that is part of U.S. Sealift Command as its manned by American merchantmen and registered as an American ship

 

[Kirkhill]

Better check the Cat as I think that is part of U.S. Sealift Command as its manned by American merchantmen and registered as an American ship

Hmm. So they are a model for the Canadian service?

Get Davie or Heddle started building RoPax ferries at the rate of one or two a year, supply the subsidized vessels to the Canadian operators, have them use them for a few years then sell them on the open market or charter them out. That would keep the fleet current and in good repair and maintain a credible sealift capability.

 

[Stoker]

The purpose of the .50cals is to train management and senior people into the responsibilities that come with it that abilty to use force. Rules and regs will most likley follow or use as a basis RCMP and Fisheries enforcement policies.

Well that's not going to happen and if it ever did I hope the RCN has nothing to do with it. You have a tendency to over simplify these things when they are everything but.