New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[dimsum]

Thirdly: I'll say it again - the defence of Canada's coast is carried out at thousands of Nautical miles from it - so only a deep sea ships can do that.

This reminds me of something an instructor said at some point: 

Q:  How many ships does it take to destroy the 20 largest North American cities?

A:  One.  At thousands of miles away and likely not even seen until it's too late (if it's an SSBN).

 

[Kirkhill]

This reminds me of something an instructor said at some point: 

Q:  How many ships does it take to destroy the 20 largest North American cities?

A:  One.  At thousands of miles away and likely not even seen until it's too late (if it's an SSBN).

15 Hulls with 15 Crews flying 15 flags

15x 225 MUSD if Absalons
15x 325 MUSD if Huitfeldts
15x 100 MUSD if Rasmussens
15x 100 MUSD if Svalbards
15x 150 MUSD if Hollands
15x 200 MUSD if Maersk Triple Es

The prices of supplying transportation, logistic support, showing the flag and conducting sovereignty patrols 1.5 to 5 BUSD.

Add weapons and crew numbers to suit the mission and the price goes up from there.

There is no upper limit on what it is possible to spend.  There is a lower limit.  That is clearly definable.

Everything above the lower limit is a matter of choice.  And even the lower limit can be adjusted downwards by deciding the Coast Guard can do the Navy's job.

I can understand the desire to see if you can get a bit more out of the system.  But it may also be possible to overplay the hand and end up with less.

 

[Lumber]

I'm not sure protecting commercial shipping from pirates is a good reason to defend a $4B capital purchase.

This is a good point.

No body's navies are shooting at each other (right now). The biggest threats to international trade are pirates and terrorism. Do you need an AAD to escort merchies through the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb? How likely is Canada to get into an actual shooting war with a country that has a first-world navy? Maybe we should spend the money on faster, special operations platforms armed with point-defence and force protection vice convential AAW/ASuW/ASW.

Just a thought.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well the old maxum is we're always training and equipping for the last war.

 

[AlexanderM]

This is a good point.

No body's navies are shooting at each other (right now). The biggest threats to international trade are pirates and terrorism. Do you need an AAD to escort merchies through the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb? How likely is Canada to get into an actual shooting war with a country that has a first-world navy? Maybe we should spend the money on faster, special operations platforms armed with point-defence and force protection vice convential AAW/ASuW/ASW.

Just a thought.

If a shooting war begins you just ran out of time to prepare for a shooting war.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a blue water navy. I just don't think the need for one has been clearly explained. Is it to constrain Chinese/Russian ambitions? Fine. To pull our weight in the international community? Again fine. Defence against pirates and drug smugglers seems like a stretch for 15 6000 tonne ships. This whole 15 major surface combatants seems like a case of the RCN having eyes bigger than their stomach.

 

[Sub_Guy]

No.  Not to long ago 16 major surface combatants.  So 15 is not a case of the RCN having eyes bigger than their stomach.

I say cut the army out all together and fund the Navy.  What do we need an army for?  If any force is going to attack us they will be approaching from one of the three oceans.  :nod:

 

[Kirkhill]

A pox on both houses - F35s are the magic bullet.

With that said -

I am absolutely sure that when Constable painted this in 1839

the discussion was about breaking up ships of the line while wasting silver on building frigates for the West Africa Squadron anti-slavery patrol.

By the 1850s, around 25 vessels and 2,000 officers and men were on the station, supported by nearly 1,000 'Kroomen', experienced fishermen recruited as sailors from what is now the coast of modern Liberia.

Service on the West Africa Squadron was a thankless and overwhelming task, full of risk and posing a constant threat to the health of the crews involved. Contending with pestilential swamps and violent encounters, the mortality rate was 55 per 1,000 men, compared with 10 for fleets in the Mediterranean or in home waters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/royal_navy_article_01.shtml

Nevermind that that non-military, constabulary role gave Britain the moral authority to rule the waves for the next 100 years and the public support to finance it.

And with that public support they managed to fund a fleet of these

 

[GR66]

If a shooting war begins you just ran out of time to prepare for a shooting war.

I think this is a hugely important point.  Gearing up naval production for a conflict will be slower than for either of the other elements due to the size and complexity of the platforms.  We'll never have enough money to provide for every capability that we would WANT in preparation for a conflict but we should definitely provide a solid base to cover what we realistically might NEED in a conflict.

We as a nation really must decide what we NEED our military to be able to do and what we'd LIKE our military to be able to do.  Only then can we wisely spend the huge amounts of money that arming our military requires.

 

[jmt18325]

With even the UK looking for more of a high low mix, it seems that it may be necessary to do the following:

3 AAD ships of a lesser capability than we were originally planning so that at least 1 can always be deployed;
6 multirole ships with ASW warfare so that at least one can always be deployed from each coast;
6 corvettes, or at the very most, basic frigates of a smaller size.  These would have gun and self defence armament and would be able to do 90% of what the RCN does.

 

[suffolkowner]

With even the UK looking for more of a high low mix, it seems that it may be necessary to do the following:

3 AAD ships of a lesser capability than we were originally planning so that at least 1 can always be deployed;
6 multirole ships with ASW warfare so that at least one can always be deployed from each coast;
6 corvettes, or at the very most, basic frigates of a smaller size.  These would have gun and self defence armament and would be able to do 90% of what the RCN does.

I'm somewhat in agreement with this, I believe I read somewhere that US studies have shown that 9 hulls was the minimum needed from cost perspectives(?). I wouldn't necessarily be in favour of sacrificing capability, in fact I would hope that all the ships would be more capable than the Halifax class. Smaller frigates can be extremely capable as well look at Singapores Formidable class.

 

[jmt18325]

I think Stanflex with the same hull for all is the answer then.  I'm questioning if we're not giving up too much for AAD in this case.  15 capable frigates in all areas from point defence to ASW to ASuW would be far more affordable.

 

[AlexanderM]

I think Stanflex with the same hull for all is the answer then.  I'm questioning if we're not giving up too much for AAD in this case.  15 capable frigates in all areas from point defence to ASW to ASuW would be far more affordable.

I'd pick Ivars myself, but not with Irving.

 

[dimsum]

No.  Not to long ago 16 major surface combatants.  So 15 is not a case of the RCN having eyes bigger than their stomach.

I say cut the army out all together and fund the Navy.  What do we need an army for?  If any force is going to attack us they will be approaching from one of the three oceans.  :nod:

I know you're being facetious, but you do bring up a good point.  Also, wasn't the same discussion being made for the new fighters (either continental defence or expeditionary capability as the main driver?)

 

[GR66]

With a military of our size and budget I think conceptually I'd be willing to accept dropping certain capabilities and focusing on others.  If we aren't willing to put the money that's required to be an effective multi-capability force then maybe we can at least focus on certain capabilities and do them really well.  My fear however is that we will drop some capabilities and still not equip ourselves so at to be able to properly fulfill our specialized roles either.

 

[Underway]

I say cut the army out all together and fund the Navy.  What do we need an army for?  If any force is going to attack us they will be approaching from one of the three oceans.  :nod:

I've been arguing this for years.  The CA is bloated and over-large for our requirements and always has been, especially its reserve elements.  But its political suicide to go after the units.  Can you imagine if someone suggested that they get rid of the PPCLI and half the PRES reserve units and spend the remainder on the navy/airforce?  Wow.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Can you imagine if someone suggested that they get rid of the PPCLI and half the PRES reserve units and spend the remainder on the navy/airforce?  Wow.

There should be more outrage from the thought of a scaled down Navy. 

 

[dimsum]

There should be more outrage from the thought of a scaled down Navy.

There should be, but most Canadians would never see an RCN ship unless they either lived in Victoria/Halifax, or saw one as it was doing a Great Lakes tour.  For the folks without easy access to a coast, it's pretty hard for the RCN to really do much recruiting/presence when the best they could do is bring up some simulators or a RHIB, when the AF can have airshows and the CA can bring a LAV.

Coupled with the fact that the news over the last ten years or so has been focused on Afghanistan, then Libya, then Iraq/Syria, which are mostly Army/Air Force missions, then the Navy gets left in the PR dust.

 

[Journeyman]

....CA is bloated and over-large for our requirements ...

How have you determined Canada's requirements and the forces required to address them?  op:

[Should be a separate thread, obviously]

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is a good point.

No body's navies are shooting at each other (right now). The biggest threats to international trade are pirates and terrorism. Do you need an AAD to escort merchies through the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb? How likely is Canada to get into an actual shooting war with a country that has a first-world navy? Maybe we should spend the money on faster, special operations platforms armed with point-defence and force protection vice convential AAW/ASuW/ASW.

Just a thought.

About as likely as it looked in 2000 that Canada would get involved in a decade of combat operations in a Central Asian country.