By Dr. Ann Griffiths, 20 January 2023
It’s always interesting to read about Australia and its navy. (And indeed, for this reason, CNR will publish a joint issue with Australian Naval Review in spring 2023!) Australia shares many similarities with Canada – eg., historic ties to the UK and big countries with relatively small populations. But the comparison does not work well when we look at the Royal Australian Navy. For example, Australia is well into a project to convert decommissioned patrol vessels into uncrewed, autonomous patrol boats, the first of which will be trialled in October. Both Canada and Australia selected the Type 26 frigates to replace aging frigates, but Australia’s frigates – the future Hunter-class – are scheduled to be built this decade. Canada’s version – the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSCs) – will appear at some date in the distant mists of the 2040s. Until then, the 12 aging frigates, plus 4 aging submarines will have to hold the fort should conflict break out. And, with no firm plan as yet to replace the submarines, Canada appears to be placing all its future warfighting eggs in the CSC basket. Is Australia? An interesting article, “General purpose frigates as a means of beefing up Australia’s maritime capabilities,” by Stephen Kuper asks if Australia needs to consider some warships in addition to the large Hunter-class frigates. Kuper asks “can a fleet of ocean-going corvettes ease the operational burden on high-end warfighting platforms and expand the range and power of the Navy?” And he wonders if it might be useful to “field a less-specialised, general purpose vessel that is capable of independent long-range deployments, while also bringing a degree of high-end warfighting capability to broader task groups.” The Type 31 is mentioned as a possibility. Should the Royal Canadian Navy also perhaps consider getting a second basket in which to put its eggs? See https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/11244-general-purpose-frigates-as-a-means-of-beefing-out-australia-s-maritime-capabilities
13 thoughts on “Moving RCN Eggs to More Than One Basket”
The U.K. Arrowhead 140 class (Type 31) Frigate would certainly be a step up from the Halifax class we have now, however, there are other classes that may be more suitable. The German MEKO A-300 Frigate is another class worth taking a good look at along with the Turkish ADA Class Corvette (although this is a corvette, it certainly can be classified as a “Light Frigate”). The Japanese Maragamo class Frigate would also be a contender. These are only, of course, “stop-gap” measures to help replace the Halifax class in the near future before the CSC “Frigate” comes on line which I believe will be operational well before your 2040s time line. The Lockheed Martin CSC Frigate Preliminary Design Review (PDR), I believe, has now been completed by Lockheed Martin and is now awaiting government review (or keeping secret) before releasing the document. If Canada were to replace its Kingston class MCDVs, they could do no better than the Turkish ADA class corvette. The “plan” however is to replace all Halifax class Frigates with 15 LM/BAE Type 26 CSC Frigates ASAP. In my humble opinion.
I think the GOC has been very clear that no other class including the type 31 will be entertained. Even if by some miracle that was decided to go that route with a mixed fleet it would many years until we see a hull and I sure as heck would not decide on the anemic type 31. As for comments on the Kingston Class replacement made by David Dunlop, the statement of requirements are being worked on currently and don’t get your hopes up for a heavily armed corvette, it will be more towards a lightly armed river class OPV as an example. Procurement in Canada as everyone knows proceeds at a glacial pace so we set our course and the time is now to see it through.
Hello Ted. Agree completely with your first two comments. As for Kingston Class replacements, the UK River Batch ii class would be a good option however it is not the only “fish-in-the-ocean”. Other OPVs should also be considered including:
US VARD 7 095 OPV; India’s Vikram Class OPV; Korea’s Cham Suri II OPVs; Germanys MEKO A-100 Corvette/Light Frigate OPV; Spain’s BAM Class OPV and Turkeys Hizar class OPVs. There are others of course but of all of these, I believe the US VARD Class OPV; Germanys MEKO A-100 Class OPV and UK’s River Batch II Class OPVs would be the “front runners” for the Kingston Class replacements. There is also another option of course. Canada could “set its course” as you say and build its own armed OPV from scratch but we all know how costly that would be.
The Iver Huiteld might have been a very good ship to base the fleet on but I do not think it had the dedicated anti submarine capabilities required. The type 31 is a very pale immitation
Hello Wayne. With respect to the Iver Huitfeldt class, it is too late to go back and re-think our choices for a CSC “Frigate”. We have “made our bed” and will have to live with the choice that we made. What Ted & I were discussing is the Replacement of the Kingston class MCDV OPVs. The US VARD Class OPV; Germanys MEKO A-100 Class Light Frigte OPV and UK’s River Batch II Class OPVs seem to be the “front runners” for the Kingston Class replacements in my opinion, unless you can think of other options out there?
Right now the requirements for the Kingston Class replacement is 20 plus knot speed, ability to take modular payloads, a small caliber naval gun, .50 Cals, ability to operate drones among other things. They will not be heavily armed.
Hi David. I agree with you about the CSC: Canada has made its choice and any attempt to change course now would just mean a multi-year delay and an increase in costs. The coastal defense vessel replacement is the next decision, and it may be critically important because it looks like a major conflict between the west and China is on the horizon. If it comes soon, the CSCs will be of no use because they take too long to build.
In World War II, Canada’s ability to rapidly produce a large number of small warships was crucial. We should choose a design that could (in an emergency) be rapidly produced at a number of Canadian shipyards and become the backbone of the fleet in the event the frigates are lost. Do any of the options you mention fit that bill?
Hello,
Note that Eurasian (China and Russia, Iran, and others) efforts have been aimed at pushing “the west” out of the dominant position we have enjoined the last few centuries on account of our economic and technological superiority. For those nations, keeping us away from their borders and shores is one thing; attacking North America directly would be suicidal as it would push the US to nuclear retaliation and our collective annihilation.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should build a good-sized fleet of small vessels of several types for coastal protection. Re-build an industrial and manufacturing capability comparable to what we gave up, then consider larger and more complex platforms, along with the technology and systems to go along with them. At the same time, we should come to peace with the fact of a multi-polar world, and that “our” former hegemony is at an end. We may not like it, but the west will no longer be able to dictate terms or rules to others.
Regards.
Thanks, Curious Civilian. I largely agree with you. There is no chance of China (still less, Russia) actually invading. And the end of western hegemony doesn’t have to be a bad thing – it might stop us from making stupid, tyranical decisions – Iraq, anyone? The trouble is I don’t think the successor to western hegemony is balance, or a “rules based order” (in Mr. Trudeau’s phrase). I think the next bully in line becomes the hegemon. What happens to our friends, relatives, and trading partners when China blockades Taiwan (or Korea, Japan, the Philippines, pick your favorite country) to enforce their will? What happens to global trade if the US navy (with about 200 deployable ships if memory serves) fights the Chinese navy (with about 300) and loses? Will we like the world order the Chinese impose on us?
Hello Michael. In my opinion Yes, I believe there are 3 options out there that could “fit that bill as soon as they are built”. The UK Arrowhead 140 (Type 31e) River Class Batch II OPV; Germanys MEKO A-100 Class Light Frigate OPV and the US Vard 7 Class OPV. These are smaller less capable ships than a CSC Frigate but will suffice our basic needs for the near term until the CSC Frigates become a reality. The only problem is….they are not built yet. If we had any one of these designs, we could rapidly produce them right here in Canada like we did with our corvettes during WWII. https://www.arrowhead140.com/; https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/products-services/surface-vessels/light-frigates; https://vardmarine.com/vessels/vard-7-series-patrol-vessels/ . Any one of these vessels would suffice with the right speed, size, armament and numbers to give Canada that “stop-gap” measure we so desperately need.
There is one other class that might also “fit the bill”. The South African Valour class MEKO 200 SAN built for them from Germany. Just a thought. Cheers! https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko-a-class-combat-ship/.
Thanks, David. It’s good to hear there is something suitable. As you say, the chief problem is just getting on with it – making a choice of design and builder, and then somehow managing the rate of production – which has to be fast if needed, but slow otherwise; or we’ll end up with too many, have to stop, and lose the skill set.
I should clarify I’m not from a military background, and don’t have any sense of what works and doesn’t work technically.
I was a federal employee until recently – so I suspect I have a fair sense of certain kinds of problems. We had them too.
Hi David. The Kingstons are likely to be replaced with something comparable to the River class or Arafura as you say. Something a little bigger and a little faster but still quite cheap to operate. The German Braunshweig or Argentine Gowind?