David Rudd: Navy's days are numbered

[Cloud Cover]

This is an interesting take on the budget, - just more evidence we have an irrational government that is acting like it is one some pretty potent crack cocaine.

Spending boost leaves navy adrift


STEPHANIE RUBEC, Free Press Parliamentary Bureau     2005-02-27 03:18:05    

OTTAWA -- The trumpeted $12.8-billion boost in defence spending in last week's federal budget has left one vital military player adrift -- the navy. For years the navy has anxiously waited for its turn as the Liberal government began pumping money back into the beleaguered Canadian Forces.

But so far, the feds have failed to answer the navy's mayday and address its desperate need for ships and equipment upgrades.
In past years, Prime Minister Paul Martin has admitted the Liberals have neglected the military and last Wednesday he moved to make up for it by pumping a whopping $12.8 billion into the Defence Department.

The first $500 million to flow this year will be used to stop the hemorrhaging and begin replacing rusted-out equipment.

The army is the big winner in Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's first minority government budget, benefiting from almost $3 billion for 2,300 new transport trucks, as many as 18 troop transport helicopters and a new base for the Joint Task Force 2 anti-terrorism unit.

The air force also got a token gesture from Goodale, who approved the replacement of six Twin Otter planes used for Arctic missions.

The military has been handed the cash to fulfil the Liberal election promise to hire 5,000 new full-time soldiers and 3,000 reservists. Most of them will be recruited into the army.

A senior military official said the Forces support Goodale's decision to wait three years to hand over the lion's share of the new cash, pointing out the training system needs to be fixed before it can take in more soldiers.

The military is facing a severe shortage of instructors and is considering moving officers and senior non-commissioned members out of their desk jobs and into teaching positions to fill the void, the official said.

There will also be a rash of promotions to bump corporals and low-ranking officers to higher ranks so they can be moved into instructor positions, the official said.

David Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said the $3-billion cheque for new equipment is "quite modest" considering the raft of hardware the military needs replaced.

"It's a step in the right direction," Rudd said, adding the budget has left the navy wallowing in disrepair and facing massive rust-out of its warships with no hope in sight.

"I think the navy's days are numbered," he said.

The navy has tied up one of its four 35-year-old destroyers used as a command centre during operations at sea and expects to mothball the remainder by 2018 at the latest, leaving it with 12 frigates.
The navy also has been left without the use of its four newly bought second-hand submarines. The Liberal government has ordered them drydocked until military investigators determine the cause of a deadly fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi that killed one sailor.

Rudd said Goodale should have tagged funds for upgrades to the 13-year-old frigates and for the purchase of massive all-purpose supply and refueling ships.

Copyright © The London Free Press

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well I have from a good high up source that the navy will be experiencing some upgrades to better help the bayonets on the ground.

 

[Allen]

The analysis in the article seems pretty superficial. Just because they didn't announce anything navy-related in the budget doesn't mean the money isn't there for it.

JSS and FELEX were already funded within the pre-increase budget. And don't forget we do have a defence review coming up, with $3.8b more allocated for that. Plus, beyond the 5-yr period, if the gov't maintains their commitment we will have a significantly higher capital budget. So there may very well be replacements for destroyers and frigates.

The Sun has to cater to their readers and put the worst possible spin on the budget. I for one am moderately hopeful.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I don't think JSS has been funded at all, other than project definition, which according to Graham is changing yet again. FELEX has definitely not been fully funded, although portions of it are line items in the DPGM guides- in fact very few of the FELEX upgrades have actually materialized because funding was not allocated.* If either one of these programs were in fact funded, DND would have a carry forward budget of a significant size because none of the work has been done. Apparently, DND finishes each year nearly broke. That was the point of David Rudd, and not the point printed by the Sun, which apparently doesn't have the capacity to draw proper conclusions from the facts and informed opinions which form the basis of their story.

It seems that one of the biggest problems facing the Navy is the multi billion dollar costs involed for any of its projects. A small brigades worth of equipment or a squadron or two of Chinooks could almost be purchased for the price of one new SHT warship.   Same with the FELEX program [taken in total], and each one of the JSS soon to become MPRS "lite" ships.    

CFL: you are probably right, the Navay amphib will come about to give the Jiminy Cricket band a ride in style, [ala Kiefer Sutherland], but it will be interesting to observe the tradeoff.    

* edit: although it appears the ESSM and the CIWS upgrades are proceeding for some of the ships.  

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I was leaning more to offensive support Whiskey.

 

[DJL]

Just thinking out loud, but could the American LPD-17 fulfill the 280s C&C roles in a taskgroup? Obviously there would still leave the AAW role to fill.......but it could be a start  :-\


Just about to hit the post button and then I read this:

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n022723A.xmll

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's military planners say they might buy or lease surplus U.S. ships to transport troops and equipment to hot spots the world over.

They are also considering altering the design of new naval supply vessels to get the job done.

The effort to make Canada's military more mobile is part of the strategy for spending being laid out in a defence policy review that's not yet public.

Planners also want to purchase medium-lift helicopters to ferry troops and equipment around theatres of operation - but they're discovering the options are limited to some politically distasteful choices.

One is a reconditioned version of the same Boeing Chinook helicopter Canada unloaded on the Dutch in the early 1990s. Another is the Agusta-Westland EH-101 helicopter, a marine version of which the Liberals cancelled in 1993.

The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, will discuss the future of the military Thursday at the Conference of Defence Association's annual meeting in Ottawa, Col. Brett Boudreau says.

The federal budget last week promised $12.8 billion in new military spending over five years, the bulk of it starting to flow in 2008-09 as the long-awaited policy statement takes hold.

Senior defence officials say some type of troop-carrying vessel - preferably between a carrier-like amphibious assault ship and a ferry-like roll-on, roll-off vessel - will form part of the $3.8 billion in policy-related expenditures promised but not detailed in last week's spending blueprint.

The officials, who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity, said amphibious assault vessels, designed for landing troops and equipment on a heavily defended shore, are more ship than Canada needs.

So-called ro-ro vessels, however, require port facilities to land their cargoes - no good in a tsunami zone, for example - and, alone, are not enough, the officials said.

One option Canada is considering is the new San Antonio Class ship, known as a landing platform dock, that can deploy a battalion of 700-800 troops, three air-cushioned landing craft and a handful of helicopters.

The Americans ordered a dozen of the vessels but may only use nine, said Stephen Saunders, editor of Janes Fighting Ships. They will build the other three anyway and may be inclined to sell or lease one or more to Canada.
"We are looking into that," said a defence official.

Another option being considered is enlarging the design of the joint support ships, which are barely off the drawing board, and tacking one or two more on the current plans to purchase three, said senior planners.

The joint support ships, whose primary role is refuelling and resupply, currently can carry up to 200 troops and a limited amount of equipment.

Saunders said there are drawbacks to both options that are of particular concern to a small military such as Canada's, including how much sea and air support each requires.

"Most nations that have gone into this expeditionary warfare business have realized that it doesn't just stop at the sharp end," he said.

"There is a follow-on in order to sustain operations. You need either ro-ro ships or whatever to back up with ammunition, stores, medical - you name it."

As for expanding the support vessels, "the more you try to squeeze into one ship, the less you get out of it," he cautioned.
Italy and Spain are among several countries, particularly in NATO, that are reconfiguring their forces to encompass expeditionary capabilities, Saunders said.

"I would entirely endorse it if that's the way Canada wants to go," he said. "Of course, whether Canada wants to pay for it is entirely another matter."

The budget includes $2.8 billion specifically for, among other things, 12-18 transport helicopters starting in 2007-08. Those would replace about 15 Chinooks that Canada sold off more than a decade ago.

Gunter Endres, editor of the online magazine Helicopter Markets and Systems, said the choice of lift helicopters is limited to the Chinook, the EH101 and Eurocopter's NH-90, unless Canada wants to buy Russian equipment.

In one of his first acts after becoming prime minister in 1993, Jean Chretien cancelled a Tory contract to buy several dozen 101s, mainly to replace aging Sea Kings.

After acquiring 15 Cormorants - a downscaled version of the 101 - for search and rescue, the Liberals finally committed last July to 28 Sikorsky H-92s to replace the Sea Kings.

Boeing's workhorse is the biggest of the non-Russian transport choppers, capable of carrying 30 to 50 troops, and may be the best buy of the three, Endres said. The only price he had was $18 million US for the EH-101.

The first thing that came to my mind when the author mentioned "used American ships" was the ordeal in which the Australians faced in updating their two retired USN tank landing ships.....I only hope they don't have some monolithic brain fart and try to refurbish an old Anchorage or Austin LPD/LSD.....

On the other hand, when the author mentions leasing an LPD-17, the last of the "confirmend nine" (Somerset County?) is not to be commissioned untill 2011....How many governments will be have had by post 2011 to coincide with the commissioning of LPD-26+?

Also, the author goes on to suggest the USN will "just go along and build three extra LPDs" anyways even though they would be "surplus" to USN needs, then will be more then willing to lease us one or two.....This I highly doubt, since the final three of the class have not been awarded yet to Northrop Grumman and I doubt they would be if the USN is forced to cut-back their phib fleet, thus making them surplus......it's not as though the USN has buckets of money, they are facing huge cuts (losing the JFK without replacement for instance). That said, I'm sure if we placed an order for one of two LPDs, I'm sure we could be placed right after LPD-25 (if they only purchase nine), thus paying about the same price as the Americans.


Oh, and here is the USN LPD-17 project site.......intresting read:

http://www.pms317.navy.mil/index.asp

 

[Cloud Cover]

LPD 17 is pretty expensive for what you get in return. It seems like the planners are looking for something to ferry and operate a larger number heavy helo's [6-8] in addition to some Griffons, carry and land the green guys and support them ashore for a while. I was wondering if the newer French LPD might be the type they are looking for:

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/marine/decouverte/materiels/batiments_de_combat/bpc_type_mistral/mistral?_&ispopup=1

There is no way in heck the JSS is going to be able to carry more than a couple companies of troops, helo's and vehicles, as well as fuel up the escorts and supply everything all on their own - at least without embarrassing ourselves.  It would take a fleet of JSS to move a battalion group.

 

[canuck101]

Here is another website on the BPC Mistral : http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00192001

 

[Allen]

whiskey 601, you are probably correct in stating that money has not specifically been allocated to JSS or FELEX projects per se. But according to the CP article that came out the day of the budget (see $12.8b budget increase thread for full article):

"The military budget had already factored in this year's nine per cent raises for the enlisted corps as well as the costs of new joint supply ships, maritime helicopters and mobile gun systems.

The costs of modernizing Aurora patrol aircraft and CF-18 fighter-bombers were also factored into the base budget"

So unless CP has their facts mixed up, it would seem that the pre-increase budget would already provide enough $ for JSS. I hope this is the case so we can use the new money for something else. Plus, how else could the MND (Pratt) announce JSS in April 2004, way before any budget increase was expected?

 

[mjohnston39]

Another option might be the Enforcer series the Dutch build, they run about 230M Euros (at least the one Portugal just ordered)

or the IZAR strategic profection ship or LHD (loose the ski jump)

http://www.izar.es/cgi-bin/run.dll/portalizar/jsp/categoria.do

http://www.izar.es/cgi-bin/run.dll/portalizar/jsp/categoria.do

Mike

 

[DJL]

LPD 17 is pretty expensive for what you get in return. It seems like the planners are looking for something to ferry and operate a larger number heavy helo's [6-8] in addition to some Griffons, carry and land the green guys and support them ashore for a while. I was wondering if the newer French LPD might be the type they are looking for:

I tend to agree with you that the LPD-17s would be out of our price range, but I would think that any LHD type ship would look and sound a lot like Harper's "hybrid carriers" from last years election, and in purchasing such a class of ships would mean that 17.3% of our Hospitals would be closed, all the post secondary schools in the Martimes shut down, the end of our involvement in Kyoto (thus Canada taking the blame for the melting ice caps), the immediate involvement of our forces in all of GWB's current and future wars, the deaths of 95 baby seals a year, and finally the abolishment of the CBC and French Canadian culture! 

That said, I'm sure the Liberals could spin something up........tsunami relief vessels perhaps?

On a more serious not, I'd tend to lean towards the Spanish design, namely because thats the winner of the RAN program.......the Aussies seem to know what they are doing. Also, IIRC the Spanish and Dutch designs both share a lot in common, perhaps we could set the two nations off in a bidding war for a design and build contract......you must admit, the site of seeing which countries state subsidized yards could bid the lowest would be somewhat amusing for all sadistic proponents of outsourcing  >

Don't both nations also build air defence ships and AORs..........

 

[FSTO]

Yes they do, but I can't see our government allowing (if they decide to go with 2 different classes of ships) the full contract to go off-shore.
AOR's are basically fairly easy to design and build, (basically update the PROTECTEUR CLASS) its the Amphib that we should get off-shore.

 

[Allen]

It's all well and good to discuss the merits of various ships, but the stark reality is we can't crew any of them! We don't have enough people for the fleet we have!

 

[DJL]

It's all well and good to discuss the merits of various ships, but the stark reality is we can't crew any of them! We don't have enough people for the fleet we have!

Thats very true, but if one or more of these "plans" comes to fruition, crewing would be factored in(I'd hope as much).........Pure speculation on the part of myself, which I base on conjecture, rumour, and the media, let's say the upcoming Liberal defence review finds no future in replacing the 280s and/or binning the Victoria's, after some ensuing retirements, filling out the rest of the manning shortfalls and perhaps a slight recruiting drive, I'm sure enough warm bodies could be found to crew one or two phibs.

For the record, I wouldn't endorse that fictional (but plausible?) scenario. 

 

[DJL]

Yes they do, but I can't see our government allowing (if they decide to go with 2 different classes of ships) the full contract to go off-shore.
AOR's are basically fairly easy to design and build, (basically update the PROTECTEUR CLASS) its the Amphib that we should get off-shore.

I thought the government was not opposed to purchasing JSS off-shore, granted that may be due to the lacking Canadian Shipyards........Hopefully, David Emerson could influence the decision.

 

[Cloud Cover]

whiskey 601, you are probably correct in stating that money has not specifically been allocated to JSS or FELEX projects per se. But according to the CP article that came out the day of the budget (see $12.8b budget increase thread for full article):

"The military budget had already factored in this year's nine per cent raises for the enlisted corps as well as the costs of new joint supply ships, maritime helicopters and mobile gun systems.

The costs of modernizing Aurora patrol aircraft and CF-18 fighter-bombers were also factored into the base budget"

So unless CP has their facts mixed up, it would seem that the pre-increase budget would already provide enough $ for JSS. I hope this is the case so we can use the new money for something else. Plus, how else could the MND (Pratt) announce JSS in April 2004, way before any budget increase was expected?

Check out FSTO's post in New CDS/New Money thread regarding the analysis of Paul Wells. If DND has to find 64o million per year in savings, there's a good chance that a big fat target like Felex is lined up in somebody's sights. Cheers