Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Jkc13 said:

I think the Canadian surface combatant should be equipped with either AN/SPY-1 or AN/SPY-6 Radar because with newly developing threats from nations like North Korea, Canada may have to deal with incoming ballistic missiles. Also, they should be equipped with extensive ASW hardware as these ships could be operating in an environment like the Sea of Japan or the S. China, even the Atlantic where there will always be potentially hostile submarines patrolling, whether they be from Russia, China, or North Korea. And as usual, they need surface warfare and air warfare capabilities to handle enemy bombers and surface vessels. Finally, I believe Canada may need more than 15 or 16 of these ships due to the fact that their potential rivals continue to expand their navies, which will continue to strain the United States as we try to keep pace with our adversaries(without a budget, lol). It will be necessary for our allies to bolster their naval assets so that we keep the edge over our enemies.

Click to expand...

Few points.

What you want the ship to do requires a vastly larger ship then what is being offered, with how delayed everything is and with Canadian politics it would be extremely risky and costly to restart the program as that is what would be required.

You can either doing something really well and be ok at the other (ie: The Hobarts are great for the AA role but can still hold there own in ASW), or you go big able to do everything really well but end up with a ship with a size and crew number comparable to a cruiser rather then a frigate or destroyer.

Why do they need more then 15 or 16? Yes other nations are building up there numbers but you need to look at it on the broader context. Canada only has so many dollars (Bugger all really) so any extra ships to add what would be a marginal increase in operational tempo would come at the direct reduction or cancellation in another asset be it from the navy, air force or army or a mix of all. Potentiual enemies are expanding their fleets but few are able to reach Canada and all of them have to go past or through nations that are either allied, friendly or share values with. Between South Korea, Japan, the US and Europe Canada is well surrounded with friendly nations whose combined might are more then able to check any potentual adversary, A few more ships at the expense of the broader Canadian forces preventing them from having a renewed submarine service or a properly outfitted expeditionary force or less aircraft is not a good investment.

What they need is a minimum target based on operational requirements and long term production so that they allow them selves to meet the minimum demand while having enough ships that they can sustain there supply line and fingers crossed have there local industry become more efficient (ie: Cheaper and better quality).

vonnoobie said:

Few points.

What you want the ship to do requires a vastly larger ship then what is being offered, with how delayed everything is and with Canadian politics it would be extremely risky and costly to restart the program as that is what would be required.

You can either doing something really well and be ok at the other (ie: The Hobarts are great for the AA role but can still hold there own in ASW), or you go big able to do everything really well but end up with a ship with a size and crew number comparable to a cruiser rather then a frigate or destroyer.

Why do they need more then 15 or 16? Yes other nations are building up there numbers but you need to look at it on the broader context. Canada only has so many dollars (Bugger all really) so any extra ships to add what would be a marginal increase in operational tempo would come at the direct reduction or cancellation in another asset be it from the navy, air force or army or a mix of all. Potentiual enemies are expanding their fleets but few are able to reach Canada and all of them have to go past or through nations that are either allied, friendly or share values with. Between South Korea, Japan, the US and Europe Canada is well surrounded with friendly nations whose combined might are more then able to check any potentual adversary, A few more ships at the expense of the broader Canadian forces preventing them from having a renewed submarine service or a properly outfitted expeditionary force or less aircraft is not a good investment.

What they need is a minimum target based on operational requirements and long term production so that they allow them selves to meet the minimum demand while having enough ships that they can sustain there supply line and fingers crossed have there local industry become more efficient (ie: Cheaper and better quality).

Click to expand...

Well said Von.

Personally I think that besides the ineptitude of the Canadian political class where it concerns defence, the other very large impediment to their defence acquisition is the religious fervour of their economic protectionism. This predilection for supporting inefficient industries / companies, incompetent pollies and excessive bureaucracy has cost Canada billions in acquisition snafus. They have a worse acquisition system than India.

The Australian system has had it's moments and it's protectionist to a point, however there is some pragmatism within it. The Kiwi system has had some howlers but it appears to be far more professional and business like now. Of course in all three countries the biggest problems in the acquisition process are usually the pollies and their decision making skills.

ngatimozart said:

Well said Von.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

the other very large impediment to their defence acquisition is the religious fervour of their economic protectionism.

Click to expand...

The economic protectionism is confined to a few agricultural and resource sectors, hardly religious fervour, at least at the federal level. Provincial protectionism is a bigger problem.

This predilection for supporting inefficient industries / companies, incompetent pollies and excessive bureaucracy has cost Canada billions in acquisition snafus.

Click to expand...

How is Canada any different from other nations supporting domestic industry? For example, Australia and Canada allowed naval ship building capabilities to whither way (albeit Canada more so) before re-investing in their yards. The acquisition snafus is on the pollies and DND primarily.

They have a worse acquisition system than India.

Click to expand...

Not sure if our system is any worse but the results may in fact be worse.

Of course in all three countries the biggest problems in the acquisition process are usually the pollies and their decision making skills.

Click to expand...

Yep!

Jkc13 said:

I think the Canadian surface combatant should be equipped with either AN/SPY-1 or AN/SPY-6 Radar ...

Click to expand...

To get it past Canadian protectionist politicians, the APAR/SMART-L combo could be easier. Thales has already updated SMART-L, & is wooing Canada as a partner in the upcoming update/upgrade of APAR.

For those who've forgotten, Canada was in at the start of APAR development, but dropped out.

swerve said:

To get it past Canadian protectionist politicians, the APAR/SMART-L combo could be easier. Thales has already updated SMART-L, & is wooing Canada as a partner in the upcoming update/upgrade of APAR.

For those who've forgotten, Canada was in at the start of APAR development, but dropped out.

Click to expand...

Exactly what Canadian radar companies would our protectionist pollies be protecting? All contenders are foreign or foreign owned subsidiaries. That being said, Thales Nederland has a MOU with Kanta based Sanmina to help develop Blk 2 APAR so they are a contender. Sanmina Canada is a US subsidiary. Canada put up 50 million for the Blk 1 APAR development but did not buy it.

vonnoobie said:

Few points.

What you want the ship to do requires a vastly larger ship then what is being offered, with how delayed everything is and with Canadian politics it would be extremely risky and costly to restart the program as that is what would be required.

You can either doing something really well and be ok at the other (ie: The Hobarts are great for the AA role but can still hold there own in ASW), or you go big able to do everything really well but end up with a ship with a size and crew number comparable to a cruiser rather then a frigate or destroyer.

Why do they need more then 15 or 16? Yes other nations are building up there numbers but you need to look at it on the broader context. Canada only has so many dollars (Bugger all really) so any extra ships to add what would be a marginal increase in operational tempo would come at the direct reduction or cancellation in another asset be it from the navy, air force or army or a mix of all. Potentiual enemies are expanding their fleets but few are able to reach Canada and all of them have to go past or through nations that are either allied, friendly or share values with. Between South Korea, Japan, the US and Europe Canada is well surrounded with friendly nations whose combined might are more then able to check any potentual adversary, A few more ships at the expense of the broader Canadian forces preventing them from having a renewed submarine service or a properly outfitted expeditionary force or less aircraft is not a good investment.

What they need is a minimum target based on operational requirements and long term production so that they allow them selves to meet the minimum demand while having enough ships that they can sustain there supply line and fingers crossed have there local industry become more efficient (ie: Cheaper and better quality).

Click to expand...

I see your points and I understand what you're saying about the capabilities and the restart of the program. Where I disagree is with your reasons for not buying more of these ships. Canada spends less than 1% of their GDP of defense. This is half of their NATO obligation. If they would meat their NATO obligation, buying more of these ships would be a whole lot easier. That goes for all NATO countries to, not just Canada. THEY NEED TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS! I don't care what party their leaders belong to.

The 2% of GDP requirement that NATO members agreed to has always struck me as bizarre as only a few members could politically achieve this goal. Likely most members figured they would never be called out on this. The changing geopolitical reality has resulted in a different outcome.

As for where Canada should direct its minimal funding ( a political not economic restriction, although Trump's anti- NAFTA statements could make the latter true) is debatable. Without a doubt, the RCN is in sad shape but so are the other two services. Although the case can be made for a one to one replacement of our surface combatant ships, I do not favour this if it means an end to a future sub replacement program. Furthermore, significant new technologies are on the horizon (e.g. lasers, rail guns) that will make surface ships more survivable. The CSC program perhaps should be partitioned into several blocks. These future energy hungry weapon systems will likely require a much larger ship (think mini- Zumwalt). The other potential development is that new hypersonic missiles become so lethal that subs may be a better bet assuming laser anti-missile defence systems don't come online soon enough.

Canadians as a whole and our military leadership in particular have their heads in the sand. The pollies have no clue what so ever regarding defence capacity or capability. The military is fighting the last war. The politicians are creating threats that don't exist ie the Arctic. The Russians are not a military threat to our north. They are an economic threat to our resources but a military action in the north is less likely than an asteroid impact in the north.

The long awaited Harry Dewolfe vessels will assert Canadian sovereignty and provide assets to assist in the event of an air crash or ship sinking. These vessels will get deployed off shore to present the flag off the east and west coasts in constabulary roles.

The RCN I agree needs more hulls to allow it to maintain the ability to meet its current obligations and provide resources for the unexpected. Assets like transports have a place in every maritime nation. Like strategic air transport it will get used if we have it. The C17's have been well used since their acquisition. I strongly believe that some type of true RO/RO transport is needed for each coast.

Submarines are a no brainer and we have discussed this recently.

Let's hope that this year we will see ships added to the fleet and decisions on the CSC or whatever the program will be called finalized.

Jkc13 said:

I see your points and I understand what you're saying about the capabilities and the restart of the program. Where I disagree is with your reasons for not buying more of these ships. Canada spends less than 1% of their GDP of defense. This is half of their NATO obligation. If they would meat their NATO obligation, buying more of these ships would be a whole lot easier. That goes for all NATO countries to, not just Canada. THEY NEED TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS! I don't care what party their leaders belong to.

Click to expand...

No need to yell and no need to bring national political slogans into the debate. Politics are not welcome here.

fftopic Yes there are members of NATO who have complied with the 2% of GDP requirement and it is galling for some and I agree that Canada is back sliding. However in the case of the likes of Germany there has to be political and historical considerations taken into account. Does Europe really want a massive German military again? If Germany were to adhere to the 2% requirement it would have a military most likely on par with Russian conventional forces. Some countries like Greece just don't have the funds and Turkey, well that's another problem.

I don't know as NATO and by extension Canada can continue to ride on the US coat tail for much longer.

The US military will find itself stretched even thinner over the coming decades with the continuing rise of China as well as ongoing problems in the middle east. The US will not even be the world's major economy by the middle of this century with both China and perhaps even India surpassing them.

Politics aside, the RCN has to get the most value per acquisition dollar to meet their current CONOPS... Yes, the latest AN/SPY-6 radar would great. But you have to ask does this make sense or offer value to the RCN in the current budget environment?

We are next door neighbors (and close allies) to the worlds largest Navy which has about ~60 high end AAW ships.... so does it make sense to go out and blow our budget on a handful of similar ships for the RCN?

If an actual shooting war starts with a near pear rival in the next 20-30 years I don't think AAW's will be the biggest need...ASW platforms however will be IMO. The one thing the USN does NOT have is a medium sized ASW surface combatant for escorts ect... this is, however, right up the RCN wheelhouse! (see Halifax class frigates). This is a valuable & meaningful capability that the RCN can provide and is what we are better off spending our limited defense $ on.

Yes, I agree that ASW versions of the CSC should be the starting point. Building the CSC in blocks makes sense as priorities can change. Certainly the USN appreciates addtional ASW assets for their CBGs. However the RCN should have some AAW capability. Whatever we end up doing for the RCN and RCAF, there must be funds for new subs even if it means cuts to the CSC program and the fast jet buy.

The question then becomes what sort of AAW capability do you want?

Do you want top of the line AEGIS systems or are you willing to settle for a less capable but still very efficient AESA system (APAR or CEAFAR).

If you (The Canadian Navy) is willingto forgo AEGIS then there is no need for a AAW and ASW ship variants as the size of AESA systems would allow them to do both roles really well.

Personally I'd go with an ASW frigate with CEAFAR radar built in batches with incremental upgrades between them (Harder for the politicians to stuff it up if it's one type rather then two). With how close the US is there really isn't a major need for the RCN to have it's own AEGIS capability.

There is some consideration being given for BMD as the US would like to see Canadian involvement for NA. It would likely be something other than Aegis ships though. Assuming Aegis is off the table, APAR should be favoured over CEAFAR since Canada is involved in its Blk 2 development, then again after spending 50 million on BLk 1, Canada did not opt to purchase any systems.

vonnoobie said:

The question then becomes what sort of AAW capability do you want?

Do you want top of the line AEGIS systems or are you willing to settle for a less capable but still very efficient AESA system (APAR or CEAFAR).

If you (The Canadian Navy) is willingto forgo AEGIS then there is no need for a AAW and ASW ship variants as the size of AESA systems would allow them to do both roles really well.

Personally I'd go with an ASW frigate with CEAFAR radar built in batches with incremental upgrades between them (Harder for the politicians to stuff it up if it's one type rather then two). With how close the US is there really isn't a major need for the RCN to have it's own AEGIS capability.

Click to expand...

Completely agree and I've mentioned this here before as well. With advances made by modern naval radars the next generation of "General Purpose" frigates will be not nearly as dependant on their usually larger and more expensive AAW siblings for protection against airborne threats (IMO the only real difference in capability for AAW's in the future will be in the BMD realm - but the RCN won't be going there anyway so no problem). CEAFAR is an excellent example of what kind of AAW capability is actually needed by RCN frigates, there are other examples as well such as FREMM and Type 26, both of which are not dedicated AAW but have robust radars and missiles that would allow themselves to defend against most aerial threats.

For a Canadian design Thales is likely the frontrunner as has been already mentioned. A couple of years ago they started promoting their I-MAST 500 which would be comparable to CEAFAR I would imagine. This type of radar suite would support missiles such as ESSM & SM-2/6 and even allow a GP type frigate to project a modest area air defense capability instead of a more traditional point defense / self-defence only.

Again, going back to my previous post. The RCN will have to make sure it gets the most value per dollar and cutting the 3 AAW's from planned 15 hulls may offer the most savings which could allow for us to build 12 really advanced and well equipped ASW frigates (still with strong AAW capabilities). The only thing missing here is the command & control capabilities that are traditionally offered by AAW's. However, the RCN could still take steps to address this as they have the with current Halifax class where several vessels were modified with necessary equipment / space to support these functions after our destroyers were taken out of service.

vonnoobie said:

The question then becomes what sort of AAW capability do you want?

Do you want top of the line AEGIS systems or are you willing to settle for a less capable but still very efficient AESA system (APAR or CEAFAR).

If you (The Canadian Navy) is willing to forgo AEGIS then there is no need for a AAW and ASW ship variants as the size of AESA systems would allow them to do both roles really well.

Personally I'd go with an ASW frigate with CEAFAR radar built in batches with incremental upgrades between them (Harder for the politicians to stuff it up if it's one type rather then two). With how close the US is there really isn't a major need for the RCN to have it's own AEGIS capability.

Click to expand...

And talking of CEAFAR, Defence Industry Minister Pyne, was in Canada about a month ago 'talking up' CEAFAR with his Canadian counterparts.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...eases/minister-defence-industry-visits-canada

Not holding my breath one way or the other, but it would be interesting to see 'if' the Type 26 was selected for both the RAN and RCN as the ship design for our respective Frigate programs.

And again 'if' both nations selected the same configuration of ship, weapons, sensors (including CEAFAR), it might be a smart way to share risk and development, the cost of risk and development too.

Anyway, not holding my breath either way!

One thing I do find interesting is the respective budget allocations of both Australia and Canada for their programs.

And yes of course this is not an 'apples and apples' comparison, different nations account in different ways with their budget allocations too, but as the A$ and the C$ are almost at parity, it is at least interesting to see 'similar/same' dollar project allocations.

For the RAN, the Australian Government has set an allocation of A$35B for the nine (9) Frigates.

For the RCN, the reported allocation had been C$26B for the 'up to 15' ships to replace the three now 'retired' DDG's and the 12 in-service frigates (and I believe that the figure of C$26B goes back around 10 years too, I've seen later figures suggesting that approx. C$42B would need to be allocated).

For the RAN there is a clear path ahead with both budget allocation and the number of hulls to be procured, but on the other side of the fence there still doesn't appear to be a clear indication of the number of hulls the RCN will eventually receive and also the final budget allocated for the project too.

Just my opinion, but I suspect that the RCN will not replace 15 hulls with 15 hulls, I suspect that the RCN will be lucky to have the appropriate funds allocated to replace the 12 Frigates, and not the three retired DDG's too.

Anyway, time will tell!!

Okay, I know this is only a pet peeve of mine, but people keep conflating and confusing parts of USN and other nations' area air defence capabilities. The SPY array (in various versions) is part of the radar, while Aegis is the combat data system. This means a ship could theoretically be kitted out with an Aegis CDS and SMART, APAR, or CEAFAR radar arrays.

John Newman said:

For the RAN, the Australian Government has set an allocation of A$35B for the nine (9) Frigates.

For the RCN, the reported allocation had been C$26B for the 'up to 15' ships to replace the three now 'retired' DDG's and the 12 in-service frigates (and I believe that the figure of C$26B goes back around 10 years too, I've seen later figures suggesting that approx. C$42B would need to be allocated).

Just my opinion, but I suspect that the RCN will not replace 15 hulls with 15 hulls, I suspect that the RCN will be lucky to have the appropriate funds allocated to replace the 12 Frigates, and not the three retired DDG's too.

Anyway, time will tell!!

Click to expand...

I agree, the RCN's planned 15 replacement ships will not happen. I don't believe our current government will ever commit much above the previous allocation of 26 billion CDN. The RCN will be luckly to get 8 CSC ships. Our dollar continues to decline. The AOPS went from 8 to 6 ships and that reduction occurred when our dollar was much stronger. Building the Queenston class AORs offshore would get the RCN one more CSC.

John Fedup said:

I agree, the RCN's planned 15 replacement ships will not happen. I don't believe our current government will ever commit much above the previous allocation of 26 billion CDN. The RCN will be luckly to get 8 CSC ships. Our dollar continues to decline. The AOPS went from 8 to 6 ships and that reduction occurred when our dollar was much stronger. Building the Queenston class AORs offshore would get the RCN one more CSC.

Click to expand...

John,

Actually the fall in value of the local currency (against the US$ for example), is a bit of a 'glass half full or half empty', depending on your point of view.

Yes on the one hand imported components can and will be more expensive, but on the other side of the coin, it makes locally produced components more competitive, opens up the door to a higher level of locally produced components.

So when it comes to ships being built 'in country', the wages for example that a worker building the ship is still the same regardless of the local dollar going up or down, that would be a neutral cost.

As I said, a lower Canadian (or Australian dollar as we are both pretty well at parity), allows for more local components at that local currency value.

Anyway, just my opinion of course too!

I recall sometime ago that Volk sent me a document describing the benefits and local content that went into the ANZAC frigate program. It seemed to me the local content was much better than what we had with the Halifax program. This is likely due to our close proximity to the US which resulted in suppliers being more aware of opportunities. The latter part of of the Halifax program would have been subject to the recently signed FTA which was the forerunner to NAFTA. Australia's remote location may have worked in favour of local content but Australian businesses likely did a better job of getting content as did US suppliers with the Halifax build. Furthermore, most of the expensive kit comes from offshore or is is from foreign subsidiaries in Canada. The latter has Canadian content but is significantly less than a Canadian company. Despite this, building naval combatant ships in Canada still makes sense politically and from a nationalsecurity point of view. Canadian companies are better prepared to take advantage of the CSC program. However, given the high cost of the locally built AORs, I still believe this should be done offshore. Paying three times as much for what is basically a commercial ship to a Canadian shipyard is corporate welfare our DND shouldn't have to subsidize IMHO.

In any event the CSC tender closes in June and a decision is due by late 2017 or early 2018. Hopefully we don't get a repeat of the JSS tender where all bids exceeded the budget by a wide margin and the government cancels the program and does a restart.