[Benn]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

How about some new destroyers? Ours are pretty sad...

Nah, the word "destroyer" is too scary for many in the public. Heaven forbid we destroy something. They would have to sell them publicly with another name, something like Frigates with an attitude.

[BeaverFever]

There are better littoral and multi-role ships out there than the Kingston class, which I am told is extremely limited in Blue Water operations...to the point that even deploying the vessels to a littoral operation overseas is undesirable since the journey across the ocean is extremely unpleasant, even for military standards.

Apparently, the ships have such a shallow draft that they are very beamy in rough and high seas are not even well suited to patrolling the outer areas of the Canadian EEZ. So do we need mineswepping capabilites in a ship that almost never leaves the sight of the Canadian shore?

There are supposedly much more versatile ships already in use in Europe that are economical and can perform better in the open ocean as well as the littoral environment. I say keep a few of the Kingston Class around for training and 2nd-tier littoral missions and invest in a better fleet.

Also, alot of these domestic missions don't necessarily need to be militarized and can be pushed off to other Federal agencies. There is alot of overlap, reduncancy and confusion over roles in Canadian waters between DND, RCMP, Coast Guard/DFO, Transport Canada, etc. I think we can better maximize our defence budget by utilizing non-military resources for alot of the fisheries an pollution patrols, etc.

[Gunnair]

Benn Benn:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

How about some new destroyers? Ours are pretty sad...

Nah, the word "destroyer" is too scary for many in the public. Heaven forbid we destroy something. They would have to sell them publicly with another name, something like Frigates with an attitude.

[Gunnair]

"BeaverFever" wrote:

$1:

There are better littoral and multi-role ships out there than the Kingston class, which I am told is extremely limited in Blue Water operations...to the point that even deploying the vessels to a littoral operation overseas is undesirable since the journey across the ocean is extremely unpleasant, even for military standards.

For the most part, these ships are employed for the protection of Canada. Littoral ops in other countries are for the training value of working with other MCM assets.

$1:

Apparently, the ships have such a shallow draft that they are very beamy in rough and high seas are not even well suited to patrolling the outer areas of the Canadian EEZ. So do we need mineswepping capabilites in a ship that almost never leaves the sight of the Canadian shore?

Yet they do patrol them. Uncomfortable? Oh yes, but as sailors, you get used to it. It's part of the job.

$1:

There are supposedly much more versatile ships already in use in Europe that are economical and can perform better in the open ocean as well as the littoral environment. I say keep a few of the Kingston Class around for training and 2nd-tier littoral missions and invest in a better fleet.

There are more versatile ships, and they cost a pretty penny.
Hence the AOPVs.

$1:

Also, alot of these domestic missions don't necessarily need to be militarized and can be pushed off to other Federal agencies. There is alot of overlap, reduncancy and confusion over roles in Canadian waters between DND, RCMP, Coast Guard/DFO, Transport Canada, etc. I think we can better maximize our defence budget by utilizing non-military resources for alot of the fisheries an pollution patrols, etc.

You can probably assume that if naval vessels are being used to do domestic missions, then there's a good reason for it. Prior to piping off about what the Navy should and should not do, with respective to domestic ops, take a look at what the OGDs have for maritime resources and then throw in your two cents.

[BeaverFever]

To your last point, I have read the Senate reports on maritime security and this is a well-documented issue.

Does it makes sense to have Navy resources deployed to montior off-shore fisheries, when there is a Department of Fisheries and Oceans/Coast Guard with that as their primary task? In addition, DFO contracts private operators to overfly and photograph activity as well. My point is that if these departments are under-resourced for filling this role, why not transfer these Navy resources to them to free up DND money for more important operations? It's just such a niche role, it doesn't make sense to dedicate a 12-vessel Naval fleet that can't be used for any other purpose - the MCDV fleet is the same size as our Canadian Patrol Frigate fleet and 4 times as large as our Destroyer fleet. Having a mine-sweeping capability on a fleet that never leaves Canadian waters except for training is a waste of money. Better for the Navy to transfer half of the MCDV fleet to DFO/CCG, then replace those ships with ones that fill the current gap between the MCDV and CPF. The remaining MCDVs in Navy stock can be used as back-up for domestic agencies while the new vessels and even the CPFs can provide any 'muscle' in extreme situation or even stand-in duty when non-military resources are stretched by circumstances (as they currently do). This way, the Navy has a multi-tiered maritime support capability without sacrificing blue water ops capability. The economy to which is was referring was not the sticker price, but value-for-money. Sure, you be cheap and buy the lowest bidder, commercial ship design with limited use (as was the case with the MCDV's), or you can pay a little more and get a ship that you send to the Gulf or wherever on an overseas mission. DND would then have options to deploy them in task forces to either enhance & support (or maybe even replace) a CPF, depending on the mission specifics, of course. In some cases, we are -at least according to some critics- deploying 2 CPF's abroad when we don't need the full capabilities of 2nd CPF and something less capable would be sufficient and more efficient use of CF resources. In other cases, we are allegedly deploying only 1 CPF because the cost of 2nd CPF can't be justified or the additional CPF can't be resourced in time. A flexible fleet that can augment the CPF would be ideal.

It should be noted that in more extreme cases of domestic maritime security which have required Naval response, such as Operation Megaphone, CPFs and/or Destroyers were used. Do MCDV's even carry a boarding party? I'm not positive, I don't think they do as a matter of SOP. For non-military security issues, the RCMP, Border Services and Coast Guard have Intergrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBET) that can conduct armed boardings of ships. We may very likely see an armed Coast Guard service in the near future as well. I just don't see that we get much value from this current fleet. The Z-drive propulsion is cool, but how valuable is the fleet, really?

[gonavy47]

Gunnair Gunnair:

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Need more frigates and subs, not patrol boats.

We need both.

Buying frigates for coastal patrol and all of the myriad of other mundane tasks like fisheries patrols, SAR patrols, SOVPATs and MARSECPATs is like the local security company buying Hummers to check on house alarms. Too expensive for the sea days required. Frigates should focus on the blue water taskings, not on the littoral.

Agreed, we do need both. But what happens to a MCDV when it faces a major threat? Are they going to sink a destroyer with a 40mm Bofors? I don't think so. We need to build more frigates and subs. That is my point. If the ice cap is melting, that's quite a big sea up there.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Does it makes sense to have Navy resources deployed to montior off-shore fisheries(?)

Yes, it does. The USA has the Coast Guard to interdict illegal fishing (usually by Japanese, Russian, Spanish, and Norwegian ships) and the US Navy frequently runs operations against illegal fishing in our waters for two reasons:

1. It gives the Navy live targets to track and intercept who are also trying to evade detection, sure it is not the equal of a full-on adversary, but running intercepts on targets who are paying for their own fuel is cost efficient.

2. It tells foreign powers that we're not dicking around when they send their ships into our waters without permission. The fishermen can be relied on to report back to their governments about how they were intercepted and etc. and that can send a valuable message to a power that is testing its limits with you.

[Gunnair]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Gunnair Gunnair:

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Need more frigates and subs, not patrol boats.

We need both.

Buying frigates for coastal patrol and all of the myriad of other mundane tasks like fisheries patrols, SAR patrols, SOVPATs and MARSECPATs is like the local security company buying Hummers to check on house alarms. Too expensive for the sea days required. Frigates should focus on the blue water taskings, not on the littoral.

Agreed, we do need both. But what happens to a MCDV when it faces a major threat? Are they going to sink a destroyer with a 40mm Bofors? I don't think so. We need to build more frigates and subs. That is my point. If the ice cap is melting, that's quite a big sea up there.

KINGSTON class isn't designed nor required to meet a major threat. It's an MCM platform with some patrol abilities, mostly through maintaining RMP.

Foreign and hostile destroyers usually don't sneak up on unsuspecting KINGSTON class ships in Nootka Sound.

[gonavy47]

What happens during peacetime, is different than what happens during an invasion. It's not impossible to be invaded from the north. The Kingston class is certainly not equiped or intended to oppose a major threat. That is precisely my point. We talk about our country now as being from coast, to coast, to coast. Shouldn't the northern coast be as protected as the other two? We need more subs and frigates period.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yes, it does. The USA has the Coast Guard to interdict illegal fishing (usually by Japanese, Russian, Spanish, and Norwegian ships).

Yeah but USCG is not Navy, its not even DoD anymore, it is DHS and dedicated to the primary role in littoral martime security. I would support making the CCG more like the USCG (ie arming it) and giving them Kingston Class for when they have to fire warning shots over the bow of some trawler with contraband nets

$1:

1. It gives the Navy live targets to track and intercept who are also trying to evade detection, sure it is not the equal of a full-on adversary, but running intercepts on targets who are paying for their own fuel is cost efficient.

2. It tells foreign powers that we're not dicking around when they send their ships into our waters without permission. The fishermen can be relied on to report back to their governments about how they were intercepted and etc. and that can send a valuable message to a power that is testing its limits with you.

Fine, but thats just a supporting and symbolic role for when they're not busy with more important things. Our Navy could still participate in those types of exercies/ops from time to time with a DDH, CPF or Corvette without losing their fleet focus on blue water ops. Why have this dedicated fleet of Navy ships that can't do anything but support the Coast Guard? The main gun on the MCDV is literally a WW2 era weapon.