Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Seems like quite an upgrade over our current City Class minesweepers/patrol vessels.

I believe the RCN has 12 city class patrol vessels. Is the plan to replace these vessels with a similar number of new patrol ships?

The RCN has the potential to be a quite capable middle power navy:

- 15 destroyers
- 12 offshore patrol vessels (hopefully)
- 5 AOPS
- 8 submarines (ideally)
- 3 fleet replenishment ships

All we need is 2-3 amphibious assault ships/helicopter carriers and I would be more than happy.

The un asked for Vigilance proposal is unfunded as there are no direct plans to replace the Kingston Class Maritime Coastal Defence vessels as of yet. I am sure there are faceless mandarins in Ottawa that are convinced the 6 planned Harry De Wolf class can replace the Kingstons. The Americans may have different Idea's.

The Vigilance Idea looks to me like a modern Flower class Corvette with probably room to grow as the Flower class morphed into the River Class of WW II when a second screw and lengthened Hull were commissioned. Canada Sailed 60+ Rivers in WWII and they actually became the effective RCN post 1943.

The problem with Amphibious and or LHD type ships for Canada is that the Canadian Army refuses to play the game. Unless Canada were to raise an actual Marine Brigade, probably directly associated with the Brits and Dutch I don't see it happening. Canada could copy the Dutch Marines as they run an efficient and real capability of Two Marine Battalions, a reinforced Company group for the Dutch Antilles and the Dutch Marine SOF forces are the JTF 2 of the Netherlands. A Total of 2500 Troops. Between Aldershot and Victoria barracks the infrastructure already exists. 1950's infrastructure but a start.

The RCN always pushes back on the "big ship" idea's as the basic, have to get done Jobs of Canada need Frigate/Destroyers of at least 24 Hulls to just go to work. Canada is heading to the Pierre Trudeau Naval structure of 24 Warships with the 15 River class plus probably 9-10 KSS-III Submarines. There again what will America want.

The real quiet story about the NSS is just how much tonnage the Canadian Coast Guard will be sailing when that Fleet gets built out. There will be 30 Major vessels in total at about 240,000 tonnes with 8 major Ice Breakers and at least 6 others of at least the Harry De Wolf capability not to mention the two De Wolfe being built for the Coast Guard. Canada will have a 22 Ship modern Ice Breaker fleet when built out. All the Ice Breakers will displace at least 6,000 tonnes.

The De Wolfe class have proven more fuel efficient than planned and have broken far thicker Ice than planned . Canada got something right.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Seems like quite an upgrade over our current City Class minesweepers/patrol vessels.

Yeah. But that's not the point of our MCDVs. They are largely there to give our reservists sea time. Not to generate capability we genuinely rely on. And if we get something bigger, then we'll have to discuss the roll of Naval reserves.

These are exactly the kind of questions a proper defence policy would have looked at. But as usual, we avoid hard questions in this country.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I believe the RCN has 12 city class patrol vessels. Is the plan to replace these vessels with a similar number of new patrol ships?

The RCN has the potential to be a quite capable middle power navy:

- 15 destroyers
- 12 offshore patrol vessels (hopefully)
- 5 AOPS
- 8 submarines (ideally)
- 3 fleet replenishment ships

All we need is 2-3 amphibious assault ships/helicopter carriers and I would be more than happy.

I would love to see all AOPS transferred to the CCG with mixed crewing of CCG and navres. And then maybe 8-10 larger coastal defence vessels designed for Arctic ops. Give the navres the domestic mission and save the regular navy for force projection.

To add to your list, at some point we have to look at arsenal ships or some other autonomous collaborative vessel. Just like Collaborative Combat Aircraft are a thing for the air force. The idea that we'll send out 1-2 destroyers at a time without added mass of some sort doesn't work for the future.

[kwoldtimer]

The RCAF training package doesn't seem to have generated much interest. $11.2 billion over 25 years not considered big news, or is it old news reannounced?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah. But that's not the point of our MCDVs. They are largely there to give our reservists sea time. Not to generate capability we genuinely rely on. And if we get something bigger, then we'll have to discuss the roll of Naval reserves.

These are exactly the kind of questions a proper defence policy would have looked at. But as usual, we avoid hard questions in this country.

I understand. My point of view is that all of our naval vessels should be capable of genuine combat capability. This includes the offshore patrol vessels/minesweepers. I approve of this upgrade (to more of a minesweeper/corvette class). It makes our navy more capable.

How does the naval reserve factor into the patrol ships now? I understand their principle function is for naval reserve training, but, how much of the crew is regular navy? I presume the senior officers are regular navy, and, presumably also mission critical non commissioned officers. Or, am I wrong.......

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would love to see all AOPS transferred to the CCG with mixed crewing of CCG and navres. And then maybe 8-10 larger coastal defence vessels designed for Arctic ops. Give the navres the domestic mission and save the regular navy for force projection.

Is this even an option? I understood that the Coast Guard was completely disinterested in any forms of police duties or defence missions.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To add to your list, at some point we have to look at arsenal ships or some other autonomous collaborative vessel. Just like Collaborative Combat Aircraft are a thing for the air force. The idea that we'll send out 1-2 destroyers at a time without added mass of some sort doesn't work for the future.

I must admit to not being aware of "arsenal ships." To my mind, this would be more of a sea change (pun intended) for the navy than an amphibious assault ship would be. Arsenal ships have a single focus - force projection and lethality. At least amphibious assault ships can be sold as being capable of other missions, including humanitarian. Is this a bridge too far for the federal government???

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I understand. My point of view is that all of our naval vessels should be capable of genuine combat capability. This includes the offshore patrol vessels/minesweepers. I approve of this upgrade (to more of a minesweeper/corvette class). It makes our navy more capable.

How does the naval reserve factor into the patrol ships now? I understand their principle function is for naval reserve training, but, how much of the crew is regular navy? I presume the senior officers are regular navy, and, presumably also mission critical non commissioned officers. Or, am I wrong.......

I'll let the resident naval reservist answer. But to my knowledge, the MCDVs aren't substantial contributors to deployed ops beyond some "show the flag" stuff.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Is this even an option? I understood that the Coast Guard was completely disinterested in any forms of police duties or defence missions.

There's a lot of things the CAF isn't interested in doing that it is forced to do. We had CAF personnel wiping asses in retirement homes during COVID. How many folks do you think signed up with that job in mind? The CCG needs to be reformed as part of a substantial reform of our national security apparatus. A government that was actually serious would be looking at this stuff. Not even sure the next one will.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I must admit to not being aware of "arsenal ships." To my mind, this would be more of a sea change (pun intended) for the navy than an amphibious assault ship would be. Arsenal ships have a single focus - force projection and lethality. At least amphibious assault ships can be sold as being capable of other missions, including humanitarian. Is this a bridge too far for the federal government???

I'm not necessarily saying we need a 500 VLS arsenal ship. But we're moving to a world where manned systems don't go out alone. Fighters are going to be going out with CCAs. And naval groups will be going out with unmanned subs and ships to provide magazine depth and greater sensor coverage. Australia is even looking at cutting the number of frigates to fund this plan. As usual, we're behind the technological curve because we're too scared or incapable of making tough decisions. And probably because the Irvings gotta keep getting paid.

About the flat top, it's a question of policy and doctrine. A flat top is necessary to help us project force substantially. And that in turn means redesigning our force to operate as amphibious task groups. There's enthusiasm within the CAF. Nobody would turn down the chance to build that capability. But government support seems to be limited. Gen. Hillier pushed to buy surplus San Antonio class ships from the Americans under Harper. And was willing to lead the force redesign to pull it off. But the supposedly pro-military government wasn't willing to fund that idea. Unless things have changed, I can't see the next government being more interested in tax cuts than military spending. Although, the threat of Trump and real European dissatisfaction with us may change some calculations.

Ps. Among many reasons why some military folks detest Irving is the suspicion that we didn't get the San Antonio because Irving would miss out. It's like Bombardier delaying the P-8 or potentially sinking AEW plans.

[Truenorth00]

Reuters has an exclusive on Trump advisors drawing up a plan to basically blackmail Ukraine into surrendering.

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - Two key advisers to Donald Trump have presented him with a plan to end Russia's war in Ukraine - if he wins the Nov. 5 presidential election - that involves telling Ukraine it will only get more U.S. weapons if it enters peace talks.
The United States would at the same time warn Moscow that any refusal to negotiate would result in increased U.S. support for Ukraine, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, one of Trump's national security advisers, said in an interview.

Under the plan drawn up by Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, who both served as chiefs of staff in Trump's National Security Council during his 2017-2021 presidency, there would be a ceasefire based on prevailing battle lines during peace talks, Fleitz said.
They have presented their strategy to Trump, and the Republican presidential candidate responded favorably, Fleitz added. "I'm not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it, but we were pleased to get the feedback we did," he said.

....

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tru...th-2024-06-25/

I feel sick reading this. Not just because of Trump's coming betrayal of Ukrainians. But also because of our own betrayal of Ukrainians.

[kwoldtimer]

I'd expect many more concessions to Russia, if Trump becomes President. I've always had the impression that he would do anything to try to keep Russia neutral during the coming confrontation with China.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I'd expect many more concessions to Russia, if Trump becomes President. I've always had the impression that he would do anything to try to keep Russia neutral during the coming confrontation with China.

Can we please stop pretending that Trump cares about geopolitics or that he's some deep thinker?

He's not even that opposed to China. Still does business there. His daughter was collecting trademarks there while they were imposing trade sanctions.

His attraction to Russia is visceral and simple. He admires and wants to be Putin.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Can we please stop pretending that Trump cares about geopolitics or that he's some deep thinker?

He's not even that opposed to China. Still does business there. His daughter was collecting trademarks there while they were imposing trade sanctions.

His attraction to Russia is visceral and simple. He admires and wants to be Putin.

Don’t discount the power of blackmail or bribery. I don’t think Rump will be President again.

[Truenorth00]

This is why it's important to help Ukraine sustain what they are doing. This is saving NATO a whole bunch of future pain:

• Video Link

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would love to see all AOPS transferred to the CCG with mixed crewing of CCG and navres. And then maybe 8-10 larger coastal defence vessels designed for Arctic ops. Give the navres the domestic mission and save the regular navy for force projection.

To add to your list, at some point we have to look at arsenal ships or some other autonomous collaborative vessel. Just like Collaborative Combat Aircraft are a thing for the air force. The idea that we'll send out 1-2 destroyers at a time without added mass of some sort doesn't work for the future.

Are we talking about this critter: https://www.northropgrumman.com/what.../sea/manta-ray

This sounds like a highly experimental craft just now. All for Canada building its own if the US does not want us to play in their sandbox. Though we would have quite some catching up to do as I think there has been a prototype spotted in the wild by the press a few days ago.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah. But that's not the point of our MCDVs. They are largely there to give our reservists sea time. Not to generate capability we genuinely rely on. And if we get something bigger, then we'll have to discuss the role of Naval reserves.

The MCDV`s are force generators and force employers. They are a total force entity with mixed reserve and regular force crews. They are also a step in the training process for Naval Warfare officers (simulator to Orca to MCDV to Frigate).
Originally conceived as a Reserve only platform, the MCDVs stripped the inland Naval Reserve Divisions of experienced part time sailors and it took about 15 years for the RCN to realize this was unsustainable and reg force augmentation began. Within a couple of years "Total Force" was the mantra and a reservist (once qualified) can sail in all positions throughout the fleet.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

These are exactly the kind of questions a proper defence policy would have looked at. But as usual, we avoid hard questions in this country.

I'm not holding my breath

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would love to see all AOPS transferred to the CCG with mixed crewing of CCG and navres. And then maybe 8-10 larger coastal defence vessels designed for Arctic ops. Give the navres the domestic mission and save the regular navy for force projection.

The RCN never wanted the AOPS and I think we'd be very happy if we built a corvette style ship instead. But its the lack of sailors that is the most pressing issue right now. NEP seems to be working but we need more data to confirm the initial success.
The one advantage of the AOPS is that it gave Irving time to refit their shipyard and give their workforce OJT prior to starting on the River Class.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

Are we talking about this critter: https://www.northropgrumman.com/what.../sea/manta-ray

This sounds like a highly experimental craft just now. All for Canada building its own if the US does not want us to play in their sandbox. Though we would have quite some catching up to do as I think there has been a prototype spotted in the wild by the press a few days ago.

Some of this is highly experimental. The challenge is that when recapitalizing a force, future evolutions of technology and doctrine have to be taken into amount. Especially given the timeline over which these things are being built. The last ship is being delivered 25 years from now. Think of where technology was 25 years ago. And then imagine where it will be in 25 years.

Unfortunately, the current plan doesn't have room for uncrewed vessels. Inevitably, this means, ships will have to get cancelled to pay for these.

[Coldrsx]

Happy Canada Day all.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Happy Canada Day all.

And to you. Looking forward to the Centennial Flypast!

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And to you. Looking forward to the Centennial Flypast!

The CBC bonked it but the RCAF Facebook nailed it.