The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans

[drunknsubmrnr]

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

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.

 

[Lumber]

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.

 

[NavyShooter]

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.

 

[McG]

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.

 

[Lumber]

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?

 

[McG]

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. 

 

[Lumber]

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.  anzer:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

they will show up with their wunderboat LCS, for sure  ;D

 

[jollyjacktar]

:clubinhand:  ??  more like    :nana:  or    :surrender:

 

[McG]

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

:clubinhand: vs.  anzer:

No.

But, what happens when a more aggressive Russia requires greater Navy resources in the Arctic?  If we need to ask the USN to do any heavy lifting in our waters when it comes to sovereignty in conflict areas with Russia, then we basically conceded to the US that we cannot secure those areas we contest with them. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

No.

But, what happens when a more aggressive Russia requires greater Navy resources in the Arctic?  If we need to ask the USN to do any heavy lifting in our waters when it comes to sovereignty in conflict areas with Russia, then we basically conceded to the US that we cannot secure those areas we contest with them.

And they disagree with our interpretation of the law we make for our Arctic claims.  So there is no guarantee they would side with us and if they did we would probably need to make concessions. 

 

[Baz]

Better to be good at one thing than mediocre at a whole bunch of things. Maybe?

The reason we used to hit above our weight is we didn't just bring a Frigate to the fight.  We brought C2, replenishment, area AD, robust helo support.  Now we bring none of that.

Now we just bring the Frigate, and ask for support.  Our allies notice... 

I was on the vanguard (Halifax) in 2001... nobody cared.  We followed up with two more frigates, a 280, and an AOR; people cared.  We were contributing to the effort, not a drain.

You say we have C2; in 1991 we commanded the replenishment force; can't do that with A Frigate.  We can only C2 ourselves.

I was in NORTH COM for Martina. .. the US had to send a tanker out to bring us in.  Think they were impressed? The one ship they were impressed with was the CCG buoy tender marking channels for them. ..

So what exactly are we good at?
C2: nope, no robust Command ship
Reple ishment: nope
AD: OK, we've put a lot of effort into if over 20 years; it's been our warfare ficus.  But when we lost the 280s a lot of that went poof.
ASW: nope
Soft power projection: we can show the flag with best of them, but deliver an effect?
ASuW: got the missile,  but who targets it.  We're not even interoperable with our own air...
Robust Navel air: nope, not for a while yet.
Mine warfare: not really
Hard force projection: is strike... nope

So what is it we provide our allies.  Sure we're interoperable, so they can support us.  Think that makes them happy???

 

[jollyjacktar]

:goodpost:

If I could give the hand clap gif too I would.  BZ.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The reason we used to hit above our weight is we didn't just bring a Frigate to the fight.  We brought C2, replenishment, area AD, robust helo support.  Now we bring none of that.

Now we just bring the Frigate, and ask for support.  Our allies notice... 

I was on the vanguard (Halifax) in 2001... nobody cared.  We followed up with two more frigates, a 280, and an AOR; people cared.  We were contributing to the effort, not a drain.

You say we have C2; in 1991 we commanded the replenishment force; can't do that with A Frigate.  We can only C2 ourselves.

I was in NORTH COM for Martina. .. the US had to send a tanker out to bring us in.  Think they were impressed? The one ship they were impressed with was the CCG buoy tender marking channels for them. ..

So what exactly are we good at?
C2: nope, no robust Command ship
Reple ishment: nope
AD: OK, we've put a lot of effort into if over 20 years; it's been our warfare ficus.  But when we lost the 280s a lot of that went poof.
ASW: nope
Soft power projection: we can show the flag with best of them, but deliver an effect?
ASuW: got the missile,  but who targets it.  We're not even interoperable with our own air...
Robust Navel air: nope, not for a while yet.
Mine warfare: not really
Hard force projection: is strike... nope

So what is it we provide our allies.  Sure we're interoperable, so they can support us.  Think that makes them happy???

We used to be at least good at this, now we can't even do that anymore!

 

[Halifax Tar]

We used to be at least good at this, now we can't even do that anymore!

Outstanding

We are f-'d

 

[blacktriangle]

Let's just disband the RCN and spend the savings on social programs!

 

[Halifax Tar]

Let's just disband the RCN and spend the savings on social programs!

Lets disband the RCN and just provide those saved funds to an ally for their Navy in return for Naval services... Wait didn't we contemplate that before ?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Lets disband the RCN and just provide those saved funds to an ally for their Navy in return for Naval services... Wait didn't we contemplate that before ?

I think we are doing it now

Thanks Chile!

 

[jollyjacktar]

We used to be at least good at this, now we can't even do that anymore!

Sadly so true, so true.  We're a floating Billy Graham crusade nowadays  :'(