Retired RCN, 06 December 2020.
A reply to the post "Canada’s Navy in Deep Crisis - 2021"
I think the RCN is NOT in crisis. The RCN certainly has a lot of challenges throughout its history stemming back from its inception in 1910 and the challenges it’s facing now and in the future is no different from what it’s faced in the past. ALL navies face challenges. It’s how you face these challenges which is important.
The RCN is in the middle of its biggest fleet recapitalizations in many years. Two purpose built JSS that will allow these ships to transit threat areas among other capabilities and get back in the fleet support and fueling game, the Harry DeWolf Class Arctic and Offshore Patrol ships that will allow a significant RCN presence in the Arctic for up to 5 months of the year along with the Arctic Fueling Depot, the rest of the time elsewhere representing Canada’s interests and 15 CSC frigates potentially one of the most heavily armed warships Canada has ever had if not in the world of that class and future proofed for years of upgrades and expansion.
Until then the twelve Halifax Class has been life extended and have a robust maintenance program in place and ships are sailing and deploying according to the fleet schedule and meeting our commitments. Asterix as an interim measure is looking after the needs of the fleet and more than likely will do so for the foreseeable future until the two JSS are operational. Past deployments have shown that two JSS will be enough to look after our needs to the future and it's been over twenty years since we had three operational AORs and that's with operating more ships. These JSS will have a significant HADR capability with ship to shore connectors and with addition of HADR capability of the Harry DeWolf Class will satisfy that LEADMARK 2050 requirement and if Canada makes the decision to retain Asterix at the end of its lease could possibly increase our own significant capability and provide a surge capability to support operations. Although I personally think a new civilian built ship built offshore based on the TIDE Class would be cheaper and less maintenance requirement of an older, less capable ship like Asterix.
The Kingston Class which was recently mentioned by the RCN to be retained and life extended continues to punch above its weight and in great shape and certainly of one of the success stories for the RCN and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future representing Canada domestically and abroad.
The four Victoria Class Submarines are an asset with several coming out of maintenance cycles and soon will be able to get back to sea on operations and the life extension program will keep them operational for many years to come. I agree that the submarines will have to be eventually replaced however talk of AIP equipped submarines to operate under the ice pack is fanciable at best. AIP hasn’t matured to the point where this is even possible, and the boats simply do not the endurance or power to operate under the ice. I believe the maximum a AIP submarine has been submerged is 16 days. The only choice for ice operations is nuclear and in this type of political and fiscal climate is simply not going to happen. The best we can hope for is a replacement in the future when and if the post-Covid fiscal reality of Canada will improve, that also goes for any talk to increasing our GDP to 2% unless we have a government change or military spending is used as an economic stimulus.
I agree that a peace support ship is desirable, however not an amphibious ship with HADR capabilities. Canada has never had that type of capability we briefly looked at that when we used the Mistral with Canadian participation in an amphibious exercise and never revisited it. While it would be interesting for the RCN, we simply don’t have the resources and it's not mentioned specifically in LEADMARK 2050 in regards to an offensive capability. It would be much better in my opinion to pay Davie to come up with a cheap civilian design with ship shore connectors (they are good at that) to satisfy that requirement and have another government department operate it with limited RCN participation.
Canada’s Navy is on a steady course of a balanced, multipurpose, combat effective fleet renewal and with new arctic capabilities in the North, regaining lost capabilities to continue protecting our sea lanes and project global power, forward postured, survivable, adaptable and agile all points for a Blue Water navy. So there you have it, we have challenges but hardly a crisis.
Featured image credit: Royal Canadian Navy representing Canada at RIMPAC 2020. News: https://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=royal-canadian-navy-representing-canada-at-rimpac-2020/kdhojej0
9 thoughts on “The Navy is NOT in Crisis”
Hello Retired RCN! First of all, I want to thank you for your service to our country. I know what that means as I too am a retired RCN service member for over 41 ½ years. The RCN has had the expertise and capability of an Amphibious HA/DR operations in the past for many years; HMCS Warrior, Magnificent and Bonaventure CVLs. Will the JSS have complete field hospitals with a full complement of medical/dental personnel; the ability to carry hundreds of civilian structural/electrical engineers for re-construction of devastated areas along with power distribution? Will the JSS have more than two helicopters above or below decks to ferry personnel back and forth. Not to mention hundreds of tons of supplies for all of this? Somehow I don’t think so. But only 1 Juan Carlos class LHD can accomplish all of this. A great asset to have for Canada and certainly doable. These LHDs are not offensive but have plenty of defensive capabilities. I recognize the fiscal constraints right now and that the Navy would have to increase CF personnel as well. Yes you are correct. Nuclear under-ice submarine operations are the only viable solution-at this time and not attainable for Canada. Modern AIP submarines at present are still restricted by Lithium Ion Batteries (LIBs) that are not quite there yet. But, the Japanese are the world leaders in this technology and soon will be able to increase submerged times in the not too distant future. COVID-19 not withstanding, an increase in defence spending would go a long way to see this more balanced fleet of the future.
David, what we had is carriers that could take rolling stock on its flight deck and that’s it and it moved military rolling stock. It didn’t have ship to shore connectors or anything like that and I think its a stretch to say it had the capabilities of a amphibious ship. We never had that capability, end of story.
Any HADR response will be first done by DART and airlifted in. IF the government deems it necessary it will send a follow up marine response and even that is not guaranteed. During hurricane Dorian Asterix was in Halifax alongside to send to the Caribbean and wasn’t, more than likely was part of that reason was we simply do not have the foreign interests to do that unlike Britain, the Netherlands and other countries.
You make a good point, the JSS doesn’t have a field hospital or dental hospital, although a dental hospital is not usually a requirement for a HADR response but it certainly could carry a mobile field hospital and be set up on land with all the equipment needed to run it in 20Ft ISO containers. More importantly it will have the ship to shore connectors to allow personnel and supplies to be transported ashore or the helos to move personnel and supplies ashore as well. Any other additional helos required including personnel could easily be accomplished by a Harry DeWolf Class ship or 2 or even a CSC, think outside the box. Those things exist through the modern concept of modular payloads and JSS can carry quite a bit of supplies in that regard and though minimal manning carry plenty of personnel, we however do not or ever carried civilians and to suggest that we should then build a Davie HADR ship and let the government run it.
While endurance times increasing with maturing technology, battery operated submarines will never have the brute force required to break though the ice which is absolutely a requirement to operate in the Arctic under the ice for obvious reasons.
More defence spending is always desirable, but there are other neglected areas we need to concentrate on, fighters, infrastructure, more transport aircraft, satellite communications, new helicopters and lots of other needs that are completing with the RCN. Having a amphibious capability is a nice to have not a need right now for all kinds of reasons. Even if we had the doctrine, crew, helicopters, docking space for such ships there are other much more critical areas in the RCN that these defence dollars could be spent.
Hello again “Retired RCN”. The Majestic class carrier CVL-22 HMCS Bonaventure was originally commissioned as an ASW carrier able to carry 34 aircraft including Banshee jets, ASW Tracker A/C and 13 Sea King ASW Helicopters and up to 1320 sailors, army and air force personnel. Her missions also included Amphibious Sealift Capabilities including transporting Canadian troops equipment and stores for the Canadian United Nations forces in Cyprus. In January 1970, the Bonaventure (minus her aircraft) was sent to carry troops and equipment of the Royal 22nd Regiment to Jamaica for training exercises. She was also used as a replenishment oiler to replenish frigates with fuel, stores and ammunition. She was sent to recover Canadian Forces troops and equipment from Narvik Norway after NATO military exercises. There was no “rolling stock” on her flight decks as you say. Her cranes on-board could lift any vehicle the army had, and secure them inside her hanger decks. So to say, that it is a stretch that we never had an Amphibious Sealift Capability is just not so. End of story.
Yes, you are correct to say it makes sense to initially send in DART Teams to survey disaster areas. That will be critical in any HA/DR response from Canada. However that is where we go our separate ways. An LHD like the Juan Carlos class can do so much more as an HA/DR vehicle. The JSS has a “Modular Hospital” to perform triage, resuscitation and treatment for shock. It has an enhanced capability for primary surgery, medical intensive care, able to carry a minimal amount of beds for general and intensive care patients. The JSS has a storage capacity for 32-20ft TEUs with no real ability to carry any amount of troop formations/civilians or any large amount of heavy equipment. To task a couple of AOPs/CSC Frigates to any sort of HA/DR initial response is commendable but not really an effective way to employ HVUs such as a CSC Frigate. The Juan Carlos class LHD carries 1403 personnel including crew, medical/Command staff and either 1000 troops/civilian personnel. It is capable of transporting 144-20 ft TEU containers as well as evacuating civilian refugees. It has a full field hospital including two full operation theatres, a dentist’s room, a sick bay, a consulting room, a first aid room, an ICU, an injury selection area, an X-ray room, a lab and a chemist’s room. An elevator connects the dock, flight deck and cargo decks to the hospital to transport injured personnel. The JSS Project should not be confused with the Amphibious Assault Ship Project, which is a proposed separate procurement project. The Juan Carlos class carries 12 medium to heavy lift helicopters below decks plus 6 helos on-deck or 4 Chinook helicopters. The JSS has room for 2 x 148 Cyclone helicopters. The JSS has 1 ship-to shore motorized connector lashed on the upper-deck where as the LHDs have a well dock that can carry up to four Landing Craft Mechanized, or LCM-1Es. They can be deployed up to Sea State Four, and operate over-the-horizon up to 20 nautical miles from their parent LHD. When the JSS was first planned they were envisioned to have a displacement of almost 30,000 tons full load and able to accomplish a lot more than what they will eventually be able to do. These JSS ships are only slightly more than the AORs we had in the early 1970s, and nothing more to replenish the future fleet.
I agree with you on having a nuclear submarine capability, but unless the sky falls tomorrow, this will never happen in this country however I believe the modern AIP Sub with much improved LIBs of roughly 5000+ tons submerged would be exactly what Canada needs in our Arctic for the future.
I am going to go out on a stretch to continue my argument that HMCS Bonaventure was NOT an amphibious ship, an amphibious ship is a type of ship that can land men, material and vehicles via a ship to shore connector type amphibious craft to a shoreline more than likely under fire.
HMCS Bonaventure indeed was used to transport men, vehicles and supplies several times during its career. It was used in a way contrary of its intended design. My comment about roiling stock was a terminology mistake, its vehicles were stored both in its hangers and on its flight deck. I have seen pictures of this from its Cyprus trip in 64 and from in 70 on its trip to Norway and I have talked to crewmembers who were there so yes, I am sure vehicles were stored on its flight deck.
Bonaventure was used for Cyprus in 64 because no regular transport was available, and its speed was needed as it was an emergency. During 1970 it was used according to its operational history because HMCS Protecteur was not available, so it was used for NIMROD CAPER, MAPLESPRING and ARCTIC EXPRESS. As it was being paid off did not a have a tasking. Carriers have also been double hatted for these types of operations.
So, I maintain that Bonaventure was a light carrier that had the room to transport these items just like another transport ship. It did a hell of a job but not amphibious in the strictest sense. For a nominal price we could easily have a sealift ship produced by an overseas yard that could be run by private contractors and do HADR and carry the army’s toys.
No one is disputing the capabilities of a Juan Carlos class and there are many other classes that are just as good or better. The reality of the situation is that we don’t having the personnel, doctrine, resources or even jetty space to entertain such a major purpose at its time. In the future who knows, all I know that currently it’s a headache that the RCN doesn’t need. If we did, we would have bought the Mistrals and even with the bargain price would have been problematic for whole host of reasons.
JSS, Asterix, AOPS and CSC when built will carry on with HADR capability as is, it’s not like they don’t all bring something to the table. CPF’s were previously used to provide a robust HADR capability on occasion.
The JSS even in its current form is way better in capability than the previous AOR’s, its double hull, two shaft lines, degaussing, modern NBCD citadel FF/DC capability, Sea Giraffe search radar is miles ahead our old AOR’s. Yes, they will be replenishing our fleet with fuel, ammo and parts and support hopefully a Canadian task group even with one set of goalposts. As well there will be five ship shore connectors, two for each JSS, one for training. That’s two more than the old tankers had and as you have stated can carry 32 20Ft ISO’s.
Regarding the AIP, material I have read put it decades away from having enough submergence endurance able to safely go under the ice and it will never have the power to surface in ice. Much better for new submarines in great numbers with a robust near ice edge capacity in conjunction with a sub-surface network of hydrophones in the Arctic. Before that priority should be another Arctic fueling depot at the western end of the NWP and further develop the Canadian Arctic Underwater Sentinel Experiment.
Yes, HMCS Bonaventure was not a dedicated Amphibious Sealift Carrier, but could do most things a modern dedicated Amphibious Carrier does. Yes, she did not have specific ship-to-shore connectors but carried as many as 13 naval helicopters or 4/5 Chinooks for supply/personnel transfers ashore. Yes, flight-deck vehicle equipment lash-downs did occur as well as in her hanger decks, but that would also happen on modern Amphibious Sealift ships as well, so, no problem there. Buying an LHD built overseas could happen but Canada would not stand for ships being built outside of the country when they could easily be built in Canadian shipyards like say Davies shipyard. Canada could easily buy the “blue-prints” and have the ships built here. Not a big deal to have the Juan Carlos class LHD to be built here. Our new ships will bring “some” portion of HA/DR to the table, but not to the extent a dedicated HA/DR ship could bring. No doubt that the JSS Sea Giraffe radar is a great option for a tanker however just think what a SPY 7 V 1 radar on a dedicated LHD could bring. Spain already has the SPY 7 going on its new F110 class. The old tankers originally had 4 connectors on each ship by the way, but had to cut down to 2 as they could not find spare parts for 4. As for news modern submarines, if we are serious about our Arctic sovereignty, we must have subs that can go further north to assert that sovereignty. Just give LIBs a chance and you will find that it will be possible sooner than you think.
HMCS Bonaventure did not operate Chinooks as they weren’t in inventory until 74 and the ship was decommissioned in 70 and the US didn’t land those aircraft there either. Back then the Sea Kings didn’t have the capability or versatility to be good transport aircraft and were unsuitable to sling loads, the couple of HUP-3’s onboard could when they had them. If you’re calling the (small) landing craft on the AORs as a type of ship to shore connectors that’s simply not true as a ship to shore connector is significantly larger with the capability to land 20ft ISO constrainers and vehicles, the ones that were on the AORs were tiny in comparison, one prop and were very unreliable even when they were new and they couldn’t carry vehicles or containers let along much cargo.
I never said that we shouldn’t have a amphibious ship, all I said was that at this time and in the foreseeable future we simply can’t afford to lack of resources and priorities and we can still bring a robust HADR capability which we will bring with other platforms and that’s a fact. It won’t be the all encompassing amphibious ship, but will make an impression never the less. The SPY 7 would be a poor choice for a Amphibious ship as its main purpose would be to send missiles to intercept other missiles or aircraft, much better having the 3D Sea Giraffe which is not a slouch either and much cheaper.
People are dreaming if they think 15 Type 26 frigates will be built. Remember CPF 13-18 and the corvettes in the 80s? I do.
Spoiler alert!
Hi Dave. Yes, 15 CSC Frigates will be built (as a minimum) just to replace our 4 Iroquois class Destroyers and 12 Halifax class frigates. By the way, what we had before (fleet capital ships) was more than what we are getting (15 CSC Frigates).