New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

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

Which we chose to get involved in while employing what we had on hand and what we could beg, borrow or steal from the open market. 

 

[Lumber]

Which we chose to get involved in while employing what we had on hand and what we could beg, borrow or steal from the open market.

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

Yes, and how many Harpoons did our ships fire? How many Sea Sparrows? How many torpedoes? Did we shoot incomming anti-ship missiles out of the sky with our CIWS?

 

[suffolkowner]

http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol11num2/vol11num2art1.pdf

a look at inflation and the AOPS, we can expect similar trends with CSC. The AOPS is to me a flawed design/idea at least with respect to the RCN it wouldn't bother me to end up with only 3 or 4 instead of the 5,6,7,8

 

[jmt18325]

We're going to end up with either 5 or 6.  The contract doesn't allow for anything else.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes, and how many Harpoons did our ships fire? How many Sea Sparrows? How many torpedoes? Did we shoot incomming anti-ship missiles out of the sky with our CIWS?

My point is, that it's really impossible to forecast where we will be fighting next and with what. About the only thing you can be sure of that in a future naval conflict you be bringing what you have, not what you want or need.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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

[Should be a separate thread, obviously]

Lets not go there  :warstory:

I don't have the time or the energy (it's been sucked out of my veins slowly but surely) to get in to a huge debate about this but I will say I believe Canadian Defence Strategy should give primacy to the Navy and Air Force over the Army.  I'm a believer in forward defence and the best way to achieve that is with a strong Navy and Air Force. 

Our military needs a reorientation though, it needs to move away from preparing to "fight the big war" and refocus on "fighting many small wars".  We are still gearing up as if it's 1962 and 20,000 Russian Tanks are going to pour through the Fulda Gap.  That's not a reflection of the present reality or what the future security environment (FSE) is probably going to look like.

To quote Land Operations 2021,

"In general, the future security environment will continue to exhibit high volatility and uncertainty.  Already, ongoing trends (e.g. globalization, rapid scientific and technological innovation, demographic change, shifting regional power balances, the growing prominence of non-state actors) are leading to considerable change in the nature of conflict and its conduct.  The result is that traditional threats and challenges are increasingly being eclipsed by newer dangers.  While the prospect of inter-state war will not disappear, future challenges will be more diverse-with asymmetric attacks launched by transnational terror groups, and the political instability, civil war and humanitarian crises characteristic of fragile countries making up the lion's share of turmoil in the early 21st century."

The key portion is highlighted in yellow and even though the book was written in 2007 I believe it's still relevant today.  The resurgence of Russia as a conventional threat to the West is being vastly exaggerated and overstated and China is not interested in a fight with us, it would be too bad for business.  The biggest threat to our interests is from non-state actors and failed/failing states, primarily in Africa and the Middle East. 

The Navy needs to reorient itself to combating this threat if it wants to remain relevant to Canadian Defence in the 21st Century.  That reorientation should be a move towards operations in the littoral.  The Navy needs to maintain the ability to conduct conventional naval operations but needs to move towards supporting land and air forces in the conduct of their operations.

Two big capabilities I see as a requirement for the Navy in the Future Security Environment:

1.  Troop and Cargo Lift (i.e. something like the Mistrals)
2.  Land Attack Capability (i.e. Tomahawk Missiles)

A Canadian Naval Task Force consisting of a Canadian Surface Combatant (With a Land Attack Capability), A Mistral (Carrying a SOTF and/or Battalion Gp), a Joint Support Ship and a Victoria Class Submarine, would give the Canadian Armed Forces a very good capability. 

I'm a big believer in plug and play and a land attack capability along with ability to troop lift, gives the Navy far larger role in playing with the other services.  You also give yourself the ability to "layer" effects with the other services/arms.  (i.e. tie your land attack capability in with an Air Task Force, SOTF, etc).

Edit:

Or we can all just continue to exist in our stovepipes and the Navy can continue to prepare itself to take on the Russian submarine fleet of 1970.

 

[Kirkhill]

....

The resurgence of Russia as a conventional threat to the West is being vastly exaggerated and overstated and China is not interested in a fight with us, it would be too bad for business.  The biggest threat to our interests is from non-state actors and failed/failing states, primarily in Africa and the Middle East.... 

Hear! Hear!

And two thumbs up for the rest of it.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Hear! Hear!

And two thumbs up for the rest of it.

Funnily enough, The Russians and Chinese are both in the process of substantially shrinking their respective Defence Establishments.  Russia is moving towards a professional Armed Forces with their "Gerasimov Doctrine" with the SOP being to avoid "direct and overt military confrontation" yet we seem to be simply calling for more of the same  rly:

 

[jmt18325]

Hear! Hear!

And two thumbs up for the rest of it.

Begging the question again - would we be better served with 18 frigates something like the Meko A200?  Perhaps even 12 of those, and 12 of something like the Irish Navy patrol ships?

 

[Journeyman]

I will say I believe Canadian Defence Strategy should give primacy to the Navy and Air Force over the Army.  I'm a believer in forward defence and the best way to achieve that is with a strong Navy and Air Force. 

I certainly agree.... from a national defence perspective. 

However, if the government of the day, whichever colour ties they wear, sees the military not as a tool of national defence  -- relying of the US security umbrella for coverage -- but as the go-to force to pay our way internationally, then it needs to be determined what requirements that entails.  From my experience, (five deployments in which I saw no sailors), the Army seems to be the default setting, notwithstanding the government having discovered SOF.

Nonetheless, I'd still be hesitant to point at any element and say "that's  where the bloat and room for $$ cutting is."  I merely hoped for a bit more intellectual depth than, "I'm a sailor, so the Army should be done away with," although it wasn't a particularly large hope.


Split to a separate thread yet? 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Funnily enough, The Russians and Chinese are both in the process of substantially shrinking their respective Defence Establishments.  Russia is moving towards a professional Armed Forces with their "Gerasimov Doctrine" with the SOP being to avoid "direct and overt military confrontation" yet we seem to be simply calling for more of the same  rly:

China is building warships at a good pace, I'm not so sure about their down shifting.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

China is building warships at a good pace, I'm not so sure about their down shifting.

Yes, but the size of their overall Defence establishment is shrinking

I certainly agree.... from a national defence perspective. 

However, if the government of the day, whichever colour ties they wear, sees the military not as a tool of national defence  -- relying of the US security umbrella for coverage -- but as the go-to force to pay our way internationally, then it needs to be determined what requirements that entails.  From my experience, (five deployments in which I saw no sailors), the Army seems to be the default setting, notwithstanding the government having discovered SOF.
Nonetheless, I'd still be hesitant to point at any element and say "that's  where the bloat and room for $$ cutting is."  I merely hoped for a bit more intellectual depth than, "I'm a sailor, so the Army should be done away with," although it wasn't a particularly large hope.

Split to a separate thread yet? 

I agree with you that the Army seems to be the default setting for everything we do but I believe this is because the whole Defence Establishment has been on "cruise control" since WWII.  The government isn't composed of a bunch soldiers or military experts, they rely on the Military's advice for that, unfortunately our advice is typically shoddy and devoid of any sort of appreciation of what is actually required.  We've proven to the government time after time that, military leadership cannot be trusted.

We've done a great job educating most of our Officers on the technical aspects of their job but Canadians, as a general rule, don't do Strategy very well.  As a result our officers work in stovepipes across the services and we can never present any sort of united front on an issue.  Divide and rule is the flavour of our Armed Forces, rue the day the Canadian Armed Forces ever achieves consensus within its ranks.

 

[Lumber]

The Navy needs to reorient itself to combating this threat if it wants to remain relevant to Canadian Defence in the 21st Century.  That reorientation should be a move towards operations in the littoral.  The Navy needs to maintain the ability to conduct conventional naval operations but needs to move towards supporting land and air forces in the conduct of their operations.

Two big capabilities I see as a requirement for the Navy in the Future Security Environment:

1.  Troop and Cargo Lift (i.e. something like the Mistrals)
2.  Land Attack Capability (i.e. Tomahawk Missiles)

A Canadian Naval Task Force consisting of a Canadian Surface Combatant (With a Land Attack Capability), A Mistral (Carrying a SOTF and/or Battalion Gp), a Joint Support Ship and a Victoria Class Submarine, would give the Canadian Armed Forces a very good capability. 

We already have a limited land attack capability, albeit rather limited (Harpoon have smaller warheads and much, MUCH shorter range than a Tomohawk) and a 57mm is, well... a 57m...

I agree whole heartedly to gear the navy more toward littoral/support ops. The addition of a Minstral/Canberra type ship would satisfy this need, and a Mk41 VLS can accomodate Tomhawks for the land attack requirement.

However, acquiring this capability and maintaing the capability of conducting coventional ASW, ASuW and AAW is becoming more and more expensive, and I don't believe we have the budget (as a country as a whole) to do both. I think it's better to be good at one than mediocre at both.

The worst case scenario would be Canada at war, by itself, with another first world navy (lets say China or Russia). In such a war, we would enjoy technological parity (and in some cases superiority) over their equipment and training, but they would enjoy a significant superiority in numbers, especialyl in the submarine deparment. Shoud we really be preparing for this eventuality? No. We would need to either spend an obscene amount of money increasing the size of our fleet, or developing some kick-*** never before heard of combat systems to make up for their numerical advantage.

Moving down the list, we get Canada at war, with allies, against another first world navy. This is the typical cold-war way of thinking. Now we have to ask ourselves, how can we best contribute to such a task group. During the cold war, our ships were primarily ASW platforms. We didn't even get our first Anti-Ship missiles until 1990 when a pair of quad-pack Harpoons were strapped ad hoc to the deck of TERRA NOVA for Op Friction. Instead of trying to contribute mediocrely to all three areas of warfare, should we go back and concentrate on just one (or) of them?

Our bare minimum capability should be based on answering the question "What is the worst scenario that we can reasonably see ourselves being involved in by ourselves". We then need all of the capabilities required to address that situation. The next level of capabilities needs to answer the question "How can we best contribute to scenarios we find ourselves in with other nations."

Some of things I know about modern ASuW and ASW make me wonder why we even bother. So here's my radical idea for a new fleet:

1. Purpose built Amphious Support/Assault ships (Helicpters, Landing Craft, room for a Battalion).
2. Purpose built land attack ships (lots of Tomahawks and a large-calibre, accurate gun system. No AAW, ASuW and ASW capability, other than decoys)
3. Purpose built anti-piracy/anti-smuggling ships (fast AF, multiple SO RIBs, UAVs and maybe a helicopter. No AAW, ASuW or ASW capability).

People keep saying we shouldn't do anything unless it's with NATO or by UN mandate. Fine, lets not go anywhere unless there are a few UK/French/US AAD around to watch our backs while we pummel the crap out of ISIS.  :akimbo:

Isn't this thread about a shipbuilding strategy?  :highjack:

 

[GR66]

The resurgence of Russia as a conventional threat to the West is being vastly exaggerated and overstated and China is not interested in a fight with us, it would be too bad for business.

While I'd agree that a general war between either Russia or China and the West is a very remote possibility, that doesn't mean that a regional conflict against either one of them (or against their proxies armed and and equipped with their latest weapons) isn't still possible.

As jollyjacktar noted, the Chinese are expanding their navy with a pretty clear goal of being able to prevent the USN from having the capability to intervene in a regional conflict.  And as long as the US remains the defacto military superpower, the best hope that Russia or China would have in a regional conflict with them would be to prevent the US from being able to deploy its military forces in the firstplace.  That to me suggests that the RCN could play a pretty important role by maintaining a strong ASW capability (ships and MPAs).  This role may not be incompatible with a larger fleet of smaller vessels.

 

[AlexanderM]

The resurgence of Russia as a conventional threat to the West is being vastly exaggerated

Currently, I agree. The Russian military, which underwent many years of neglect, isn't currently in good condition, and as I understand it, Putin has no intention of overhauling the ghost of the military that once existed under the USSR. Instead, he is going to put close to 1 trillion dollars into the military, over the next decade, and essentially organize capability around that new equipment. If his plan succeeds, they will become more and more of a threat as time moves forward.

I certainly sense a new and somewhat different type of arms race taking shape, not so much based around massive armies for large scale war, but more about high tech stealth and detection, along with the emergence of lasers and other high tech weapons. I also believe that Russia will become more of a bully as their capability increases. I have concerns that if we don't see that coming we won't be prepared.

 

[blacktriangle]

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

[Should be a separate thread, obviously]

Agreed - this should be discussed in a different thread.

If we ruled out major expeditionary ops, I think all services could find some major savings in both personnel and equipment...at least IMO. The first step is a defence policy that is in line with what we are willing and able to do, and what we are willing to spend.

I will say that at least IMO, the RCAF and RCN should have the lead for the defence/sovreignty of Canada. If we really just want to protect our homeland, I'd rather see new SSKs and more AOPS type vessels, and less focus on major combatants. Go ahead and hate me.

 

[Underway]

However, acquiring this capability and maintaing the capability of conducting coventional ASW, ASuW and AAW is becoming more and more expensive, and I don't believe we have the budget (as a country as a whole) to do both. I think it's better to be good at one than mediocre at both.

Our bare minimum capability should be based on answering the question "What is the worst scenario that we can reasonably see ourselves being involved in by ourselves". We then need all of the capabilities required to address that situation. The next level of capabilities needs to answer the question "How can we best contribute to scenarios we find ourselves in with other nations."

Canada absolutely needs the capability to operate on our own.  That means a combination of ships, subs and aircraft that can make up a multidimensional task group.  You loose sovereignty without an ability to independently operate.  This is why the Halifax class and the TRUMP program were launched in the first place.  We realized that ASW made us bit players and took options away from the government.

There is no logical reason why we can't or shouldn't have a world class multidimensional navy.  It's not like we are a poor country, we can easily afford it.  And the concept of "we fight over there so the fighting doesn't come here" applies to the navy most of all.

 

[suffolkowner]

I think with respect to the Shipbuilding program we're going to be in a real pickle pretty quick if inflation is eating up between 7 and 11% per annum. When you combine that with costing that was based on international established shipyards that were globally competitive its obvious that the numbers will have to be completely reworked. I don't really have any faith in Seaspan doing a better job than Irving at least with respect to pricing (they've already seen almost %300 increase) It will be interesting to see what happens with AOPS and how close to budget Irving can stay and what happens when they are over budget

 

[Kirkhill]

With respect to Canada's emphasis on Anti-Submarine Warfare:

Didn't we just kind of stumble into that because that was what was needed to get food and munitions to Britain?  Britain's Navy was tasked for Home Defence and international support of littoral combat operations.  The US Navy was focused on the Pacific and they had an armed Coast Guard at home.

We plugged a hole supplying Line of Communications ships.  That met an operational requirement of Britain.

After the war the RCN clung to that role even as the need for convoys seems to have petered out.  The Anti-Sub skills were then put at the service of the USN and, apparently, are used to assist the US in deploying its fleets to meet its national objectives.

What are Canada's national objectives?

Are Anti-Sub Frigates really the only thing we need to meet those objectives?

I accept that we can't be all things to all people. But we should be most things to ourselves. No? 

 

[GR66]

[snip]

What are Canada's national objectives?

Are Anti-Sub Frigates really the only thing we need to meet those objectives?

I accept that we can't be all things to all people. But we should be most things to ourselves. No?

What ARE Canada's national objectives in terms of naval forces?

What foreign nation (other than the US) has the naval capability to put a credible surface task force into Canadian territorial waters to pose a threat to our national interest? 

Now let's remove the arctic where others more knowledgeable than myself have pointed out that a surface force trying to push at ant-like speed through the ice or stuck in the narrow confines of the arctic archipelago could best be handled by aircraft rather than other surface ships.

Let's also rule out our close allies since it would be a fool's game to try and build a navy capable of taking on the USN, and is building a navy around the concept of facing your LEAST likely opponents a sound strategy that is likely to produce the best mix of forces you may actually require?

Who does that leave?  China and Russia?  Do either of them have the capability to put surface forces into Canadian territorial waters?  Can anyone provide me a credible scenario where such a Chinese or Russian naval force would NOT trigger a joint Canadian/US response?  Can anyone provide me with a credible scenario where we wouldn't welcome US involvement in repelling such an attack?  Does anyone believe that either the Russian or Chinese navies could defeat the USN/RCN with an expeditionary naval force in North American territorial waters within range of ground-based air support?

I would suggest that the greatest direct military (and political) threats to Canadian maritime territory would be submarines, non-conventional attacks and tests of our sovereignty/ability to respond to incursions.  All of these threats I believe would be best countered by a larger fleet of vessels with the good ASW capabilities that can cover a greater territory.  The need to conduct major anti-surface threats is much less likely and air threats in our own backyard are likely best countered by our own air assets.

Those are our self-defence national interests (in my opinion anyway), so what are our expeditionary national interests?  Have we ever as a nation taken unilateral expeditionary military action against another country?  Are we likely to?  Are we likely to want to?  I think we're much more likely to send our expeditionary naval forces as part of a coalition with our allies.  So the question then is what would be a useful contribution that we could make to a multi-national force?