Naval Capabilities Needed.

[Ex-Dragoon]

And when we start to go back and possibly engage nations with real blue water capability then what then Matthew? Naval capabilities and equipment takes years to gain and maintain, its something that cannot come back overnight at all and when the day comes where we will need it I have no doubts casualties will be high and awful.

 

[cameron]

+1 Ex-Dragoon, there was a time not that long ago when the British and many others thought that retaining certain naval capabilities was an anachronism.  No one expected the Royal Navy to sail halfway around the world to fight a Latin American power.  The possibility of a war with the Warsaw Pact was the most plausible reality in the late 70's early 80's.  But history shows that in war new realities have a way of popping up (sometimes these realities are not all that new but we're often so preoccupied with present realities that we fail to see the big picture and miss other evolving threats). 

Just because Canada's greatest national security threat presently comes from a country or countries which does not require us to respond with naval assets, does not mean out future threats will be of the same nature.  Many third world countries are improving their navies and not all of them are necessarily friendly to the west, and even if they seem friendly now, their future plans are suspect, eg. China.  Cdn Blackshirt, it would be unwise to handicap our navy, when we obviously can never tell what what lies over future horizons.  Mark my word, if Canada does not take immediate steps to halt the decline of its blue water naval capability, and take concrete steps to bring new capabilities on board to meet future threats, it will only be a matter of when not if, we pay the catastrophic consequences.

 

[cameron]

Hey guys the current (spring) issue of the Canadian Naval Review also has an excellent editorial on this topic, I just read it.  The editorial is available online.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

+1 Ex-Dragoon, there was a time not that long ago when the British and many others thought that retaining certain naval capabilities was an anachronism.  No one expected the Royal Navy to sail halfway around the world to fight a Latin American power.  The possibility of a war with the Warsaw Pact was the most plausible reality in the late 70's early 80's.  But history shows that in war new realities have a way of popping up (sometimes these realities are not all that new but we're often so preoccupied with present realities that we fail to see the big picture and miss other evolving threats). 

Just because Canada's greatest national security threat presently comes from a country or countries which does not require us to respond with naval assets, does not mean out future threats will be of the same nature.  Many third world countries are improving their navies and not all of them are necessarily friendly to the west, and even if they seem friendly now, their future plans are suspect, eg. China.  Cdn Blackshirt, it would be unwise to handicap our navy, when we obviously can never tell what what lies over future horizons.  Mark my word, if Canada does not take immediate steps to halt the decline of its blue water naval capability, and take concrete steps to bring new capabilities on board to meet future threats, it will only be a matter of when not if, we pay the catastrophic consequences.

+1 to you as well cameron. The Falklands were the exact example I was thinking of. Not to mention the LIO and MIO Ops done during Op Apollo is another case and point on why a decent blue water capability must not be maintained, if we don't stop the decline now we might as well start allowing the USN to start basing ships in Halifax and Esquilmalt to do what the Canadian should be doing.

 

[dapaterson]

However, here's a question:  Do we need to retain at great expense a ship design and ship building capability within Canada?  Do we need teams of naval architects to design and build the small fleets Canada will buy?  Or should we simply buy "Military Off The Shelf" (MOTS) from other nations?

We already buy aircraft from other nations (though the Air Force's insatiable desire for AERE officers (more AERE than airframes nowdays) does concern me); why can't we use foreign deisnged and foreign built ships?  (Anyone arguing quality control will be sentenced to a career on one of the frigates built in Quebec).

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

And when we start to go back and possibly engage nations with real blue water capability then what then Matthew? Naval capabilities and equipment takes years to gain and maintain, its something that cannot come back overnight at all and when the day comes where we will need it I have no doubts casualties will be high and awful.

Then we provide the capabilities we have within a combined fleet dominated by our allies.

I guess the situation as I see it is;
100% probability of additional COIN operations in the next decade.
5%-10% probability of engagement with blue water navy of another nation state within the next decade.  And in that environment, less than a 1% chance that engagement will occur without allied support including AAD destroyers and most likely a carrier group.



Matthew.   

 

[Good2Golf]

Not to come across as being unfair, but the reality is that the recent surge of Naval Seppuku hasn't helped.  The Navy is more disadvantaged than say a couple of years ago.

G2G

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The thing is Matthew you cannot guarantee we won't be involved in a major conflict, no one can, so tossing out random numbers is not really condusive to the discussion.

As for buying foreign built ships, personally I feel its the route we should go.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The thing is Matthew you cannot guarantee we won't be involved in a major conflict, no one can, so tossing out random numbers is not really condusive to the discussion.

No offence Ex, but I disagree.  In a resource scarce environment, we are forced to prioritize and the only efficient way to prioritize is by examining the probabilities of various events.  In short, you may disagree with my estimates, but using weighted probabilities in concert with the impact of said probability occurring, is the only way to make the best possible decision given our limited funds.


Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

But where do you get your numbers? Throwing probabilities of 5%, 1% and 10% are pretty big certainties, one has a better chance of being struck by lightning. Then again it was said we would never use the tank again and look its back in vogue....

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

But where do you get your numbers? Throwing probabilities of 5%, 1% and 10% are pretty big certainties, one has a better chance of being struck by lightning. Then again it was said we would never use the tank again and look its back in vogue....

Personally, I produced my probabilities using tried & true PANOOMA methodology (Pulled A Number Out Of My A....).  ;D

In all seriousness, I made quick calculations based on what I see as the current and developing world environment.  My point isn't that I should be responsible for developing those probabilities.  There are others who are specialists who are much more qualifed.  That being said, I think the preponderance of evidence would indicate that we're far more likely to deal with a number of issues other than blue water navy confrontations alone due to the low number of potential enemies.

China.
Iran.
Russia?
Venezuela?

On the other side of the equation, the number of likely hotspots for failed states or islamic insurgencies is dramatic.

Afghanistan
Pakistan.
Actually...all of the 'stans.
Lebanon.
Indonesia.
The Philippines.
Algeria.
Actually....almost the entire continent of Africa.

Do you agree or disagree with my lists?  Actually, perhaps more helpful to me to understand your position, I'm sure you're thinking of a hypothetical where my model doesn't work.  Give me that hypothetical and I'll do my best to play catch-up....


Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Oh your list is fine but my problem is when people advocate getting rid of certain capabilities (C&C ,AAD,etc)we tend to be less self sufficent and rely more on our allies. While it is likely we will operate in a multinational task force there are no guarantees. When we lose something its very hard to get it back, when we lose something people die in a worst case scenario.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Oh your list is fine but my problem is when people advocate getting rid of certain capabilities (C&C ,AAD,etc)we tend to be less self sufficent and rely more on our allies. While it is likely we will operate in a multinational task force there are no guarantees. When we lose something its very hard to get it back, when we lose something people die in a worst case scenario.

Agreed....and I would not advocate such a position unless it was a sacrifice absolutely necessary to add a new capability that otherwise we would be unable to afford that fits into that probability matrix mentioned above.

Example:  If the choice is to fund MRAP's, Improved Armed Tactical UAV's, Heavy Lift Helicopters, C-17 Strategic Airlifters and additional infantry with upgraded body armour vs funding the replacement of the 280's, I would argue the sacrifice is necessary IF we don't have the budget to do both.


Matthew. 

 

[Good2Golf]

The problem is the contemporary operating environment can change so much more rapidly than the systems and infrastructures and personal training can.  You have to weigh things and hedge your bets against the "less probable, but no less important" capabilities out there.

Kudos to the Navy for trying to make SCTF/SCF work...sadly the amount of energy directed into that effort was not returned in kind to the Navy as an institution within the CF.  On the flip side, one could say that the Navy is now the waning service, just as it waxed in the 80's and early 90's with CPF while the Army was pretty much languishing in Cyprus.

I think it's fair to say that there needs to be a little more balance IMO, we shouldn't be taking a "well you had more support in the past, it's our turn now" sort of attitude.

G2G

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Agreed G2G

 

[ChrisG]

Age entitles one to a certain perspective and I have seen the cycle turn over two or three times in my adult life.  Sometimes, too,  being outside the administration gives one a different perpective.  (Now I am a  school trustee and almost every day I see trustees with educational backgrounds misapprehend a problem because they can only see it from inside the box so forgive me please if as an inexperienced outsider wishing to add to the discussion I make some basic boo-boos.)

One thing is for sure,  whatever threat you equip for today,  a new, unexpected threat will be the one you must face tomorrow.  For instance,  maybe 15 British sailors would not have been screwed (metaphorically)  if they had the support of a shallowdraft, water jet type patrol boat that could have hung around longer than a helicopter.  After years of believing that 'policing' required only light vehicles we suddenly find that heavy armour is indispensible.  What next?

There is no way Canadian Naval forces, however well they fight, can defend us against a major navy such as Russia or China,  sheer numbers say it  Maybe then we should have submarines. How can  we persuade them that the price would not be worth the candle?  Should we be attempting to 'project' naval power knowing that the loss of a couple of ships in foreign waters to a new or unexpected form of attack would cripple our naval defence literally for years.  Do we have the depth to sustain the loss of the assets we risk?  Maybe we should  only risk light patrol craft for policing actions.

Why do we not appear to understand  the concept  and need for instant and  powerful air support?  The proof has been around since before the Germans invented blitzkrieg but we still have to rely on US air forces to give support 'when they can.'  Seems strange in a force where we no longer define personnel as Army, Navy, or Air Force but as serving  'the CF' in 'an environment.'

This week my No 3 son signed up for RMC as a future MARS officer. ( No 1 son is just finishing up SLT as a future pilot.) Will we see him having the right equipment for all the jobs the Navy will be asked to do and  co-ordinated support from the other 'evironments' or will he too be struggling to make do? 

Apart from our new military connection I do, reluctantly, believe we must build a force capable of operating economically in all circumstances,  and that means having offshore capability and litoral capability,  heavier ships  and the fastest lightest boats too, and the skill to make them work together.  It is a great idea,  but it means giving up the traditional prejudices.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

The concern of a father is always a good motivator. I remember when I was sailing on the West Coast and the EH 101 helicopter was cancelled. Not long after that there was a Sea King crash in which pers were killed. Some parents of Sea King crew members on mty ship wrote to the PM of the day wondering why their children were not entitled to work with safe equipment that wasn't older than them.

I think you are right in many ways Chris that it is impossible to plan as a small player for major threats, however, we have to be a player, in conjunction with our allies, that makes a contribution other than sitting on the sidelines and trying to claim moral superiority. In the cold war era our Navy was training to do the ASW piece and given the budget cuts of the 70s we didn't do too bad a job at it. the Army was deployed in Europe and despite the fact that our equipment was old and obsolete we still won soldiering competitions such as tank gunnery competitions etc. Our Air Force laboured with aging aircraft but still managed to hold their heads up high too.

I think we need an overall plan like the Aussies came up with that is resistant to changing Governments and their whims. Get a ten year plan for general defence requirements....factor in where we will fit in with Allies in a big fight and get some all party assent to move toward the goal. We are a very rich country and we can afford it...we just need political will to push it forward. As more and more families discover that the interests of their loved ones...be it sons or cousins or whatever...are at stake, maybe it's not too far fetched to believe that we can do it.

 

[ChrisG]

Maybe supporting our allies in their endeavors,  to the extent that we can,  is what we pay for the greater protection of their blue water navy. Maybe, without giving up the capability we ave,  we could also specialise in, say, inshore patrol etc in return.  It  needs skill and imagination but it might be done.

You make an excellent point on the planning front,  if you are starting a lobby  count me in.

 

[cameron]

Same here on the planning front IN HOC SIGNO :cdnsalute:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Unfortunately when we become a niche navy we lose capability and interest. I for one  as well as many others would pronbably leave if all we did was inshore. We want to retain and add to what we can do not remove anything from the pot so to speak.