Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Yuma_17_UH-1Y_4516-1.jpg

Yuma_17_F-35B_5220-1.jpg

Yuma_17_MV-22_1778-1.jpg

Yuma_17_PT-17_3864-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

This is a discussion on Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by J_Can The Red Fleet will not be surging through the Atlantic any time soon. Yes the Russian ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 1 Week Ago   #571
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sydney Aust
Posts: 63
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Can View Post
The Red Fleet will not be surging through the Atlantic any time soon. Yes the Russian Northern Fleet is a problem but they would first have to get through the RN, the Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and French navies first before we would have to worry about it. This is not even including the American Navy.

.
It seems to me that Russia and Canada will soon find themselves in direct competition in the Arctic (if they aren't already) and no other country stands in their way in that area. So saying that other countries stand in their way is not really thinking about the possibilities (let alone the lack of collective spirit in such an approach)

Any real competition in that area could soon spread into the Northern Pacific - sovereignty breeches and the like - as Russia takes advantage of the lack of Canadian assets to show they can't cover all bases sufficiently.

Really, with the length of Canadian coastline and its exposure to developing geo-political events I'm surprised the electorate is so complacent.
Boatteacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #572
Just Hatched
Private
J_Can's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 11
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boatteacher View Post
It seems to me that Russia and Canada will soon find themselves in direct competition in the Arctic (if they aren't already) and no other country stands in their way in that area. So saying that other countries stand in their way is not really thinking about the possibilities (let alone the lack of collective spirit in such an approach)

Any real competition in that area could soon spread into the Northern Pacific - sovereignty breeches and the like - as Russia takes advantage of the lack of Canadian assets to show they can't cover all bases sufficiently.

Really, with the length of Canadian coastline and its exposure to developing geo-political events I'm surprised the electorate is so complacent.
There complacent because "the good times will never end" unfortunately in their (the electorate and political class) minds. In regards to the Northern Pacific and Canada elector apathy towards collective spirit I totally agree.

However I don't see how there would be any direct military confrontation in the High North. I have done training up there twice, it can get so cold if you touch metal with bare skin you will get immediate frost bite. Weapons stop working, fuel loses such viscosity that generators won't work. Everything has to be flown or tracked in. Even under the most dire climate models the High North will still be very unpleasant. Your taking minus 20 in summer and negative 40 in winter, and summer only last about 4 months there. Taking all that into account and I can't personal see a massive shooting war occurring. Missile/ air strikes or the occasional sub sure, fleet actions I just do not see it. Even ice free is not ice free, it just means the average ice strengthened ship will be able navigate without ice breaker support in the summer. In the winter they will still need polar 2 or 3 ice breakers.
J_Can is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #573
Just Hatched
Private
J_Can's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 11
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlands18 View Post
Just one thing i would like to ask. How reliant is Canada on Sea trade out of Asia both in Imports & exports? With the growing tensions in the South China Sea area the RCN may be asked in the future to help keep these sea lanes open and that is going to rely on a strong Frigate/Destroyer Force.
Here in Australia we have a massive reliance on the Sea Lanes into Asia staying open. With either a lot of choke points via the direct route or a much longer route out into the Pacific Ocean. It's one of the things that is driving Australia towards a much larger Sub fleet and more capable Frigates.
You may not have the huge Soviet navy coming through the Greenland-UK gap anymore, but you may be faced with your Trade Routes being closed by a conflict in the South China Sea.
In short not a lot, something like 80 to 85 percent of our trade is through the USA. The vast majority oils flows from the Mid East westwards transiting either the Suez or Cape Horn, the remainder is produced here. Foodstuff is practically all North American (Canada, America, Mexico collectively) outside of speciality goods. Most trade through the Pacific/ Indian Oceans are commercial and household goods.

Also regards to everyone else much appreciated insight, I guess I was taking everyone's commentary from the wrong angle. Its not there is a disagreement with idea the RCN needs more "tools", just there needs to a baseline capability that has to be provided for at all costs (funding wise) and then everything else comes.
J_Can is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #574
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,731
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
A point you seem to keep missing is that a fleet of 15 frigates/destroyers is not especially large. Particularly when you factor in the maritime area and approaches to Canada, and then include maintenance and training cycles in addition to the operational cycles.
Indeed, and lets not forget the rule of three and Canada's treaty obligations. Ships will be deployed overseas, some will be protecting Canada, and others will be in maintenance. A fleet of 15 surface combatants is a bare minimum, insufficient really.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #575
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,731
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlands18 View Post
Just one thing i would like to ask. How reliant is Canada on Sea trade out of Asia both in Imports & exports? With the growing tensions in the South China Sea area the RCN may be asked in the future to help keep these sea lanes open and that is going to rely on a strong Frigate/Destroyer Force.
Canada's trade with Asia is much too low because of our over reliance on US/Mexico trade. It is a huge missed opportunity. If we were developing trade relations properly in Asia, absolutely a more robust RCN would be needed.


Quote:
Here in Australia we have a massive reliance on the Sea Lanes into Asia staying open. It's one of the things that is driving Australia towards a much larger Sub fleet and more capable Frigates.
You may not have the huge Soviet navy coming through the Greenland-UK gap anymore, but you may be faced with your Trade Routes being closed by a conflict in the South China Sea.
Couldn't agree more.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #576
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,731
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boatteacher View Post
Really, with the length of Canadian coastline and its exposure to developing geo-political events I'm surprised the electorate is so complacent.
Two points, one the complacency comes from being next to a superpower. Two, if you have a strong enough stomach, read some Canadian media defence articles and then the read comments from our electorate on those articles. It will be very apparent how FU this country really is.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #577
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,731
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Can View Post
There complacent because "the good times will never end" unfortunately in their (the electorate and political class) minds. In regards to the Northern Pacific and Canada elector apathy towards collective spirit I totally agree.
Me too.

Quote:
However I don't see how there would be any direct military confrontation in the High North. I have done training up there twice, it can get so cold if you touch metal with bare skin you will get immediate frost bite. Weapons stop working, fuel loses such viscosity that generators won't work. Everything has to be flown or tracked in. Even under the most dire climate models the High North will still be very unpleasant.
All very true but that hasn't stopped the Russians from holding extensive exercises in the Arctic. They are expanding bases and introducing Arctic specific kit.


Quote:
Even ice free is not ice free, it just means the average ice strengthened ship will be able navigate without ice breaker support in the summer. In the winter they will still need polar 2 or 3 ice breakers.
For now yes, but there worrying signs that polar melting could accelerate beyond current predications. An Arctic that is ice free for 5-8 months is a huge opportunity for resource starved or greedy competitors. With our minimal presence, the Canadian Arctic is up for grabs and it isn't only China and Russia (think south).
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #578
New Member
Private
Delta204's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 38
Threads:
J_Can, I can understand your frustration but the reality is that unless the govt. significantly increases defense spending the RCN will NOT be acquiring the type of naval assets you are hoping for. The main piece of wisdom I've been able to learn from this forum is that you cannot make a procurement wish list without fully understanding the established CONOPS - and what gives you the most value per dollar to meet these requirements.

The Halifax class frigates I would argue are the most versatile, flexible and valuable military asset that the entire CAF possess. They can be deployed anywhere in the world, in virtually any naval theatre; they can go from hunting pirates off the coast of Africa to staring down the Russians in the Baltic in a matter of a few days (which they did not too long ago!); they have the most global reach of any element of the CAF - working/visiting with allies (and non-allies) in every single continent. They are world class ASW vessels which goes beyond just hardware and builds off of skills the RCN has taken many years (decades) to develop. They operate seamlessly with the USN including their CSG's- perhaps better than anyone else. And as others have pointed out all of these abilities are only possible if there are sufficient numbers available to meet domestic and global commitments.

On paper it might be tempting to cut frigate numbers in order to go out and buy some shiny new toys; but in reality this would require a complete and fundamental change to the CONOPS of the RCN. All of this would be for what is essentially a boutique naval capability. The complexity and expense of this type of capability probably comes close to that of fixed wing carrier operations!

Last edited by Delta204; 1 Week Ago at 09:32 PM.
Delta204 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #579
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 663
Threads:
J_Can, while at the moment the Russian navy isn't that great of a threat you can't look at today and now and make that assessment, You need to look at the future and guesstimate what they could become while also allowing for any falling out with current allies or current allies becoming less powerful.

On the topic of pacific trade through the Vancouver port authority trade isn't thatsmall with 2016 having 3,105 foreign ship's visit picking up or dropping off 135,538,055 tons of cargo 81% of which was Bulk and Break bulk cargo, And based off of 2014 figures (slightly more traded that year but inflation to account for) would be worth roughly $187 billion up from $43 billion in 2004 and it's growing. The Pacific is no side note but a key area of concern that should have appropriate resources put towards.
vonnoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:03 PM.