New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So RCN is not looking to move back towards peer conflict in Europe? I distinctly remember RCN distinguishing themselves by keeping SLOCs open and moving large amounts of equipment by sea...

Keeping the SLOCs open: Yes.

Moving large amounts of equipment by sea: No. The merchant service does that. The only time the RCN did this was for the Suez Canal crisis when they turned MAGNIFICENT into an Army vehicles parking lot - at the expense of the Air Group, I might add.

 

[NavyShooter]

WarMuseum.ca - Canada's Naval History - Objects and Photographs

 

[NavyShooter]

They also helped the RCAF...

Canadian Warplanes 6: Canadair CL-13 Sabre

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

 

[FSTO]

They also helped the RCAF...

Canadian Warplanes 6: Canadair CL-13 Sabre

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

No wonder everything was grey back then. Look at the smoke coming out of the smokestack in the background!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Welcome to Montreal, circa 1950's.

 

[PuckChaser]

Keeping the SLOCs open: Yes.

Moving large amounts of equipment by sea: No. The merchant service does that. The only time the RCN did this was for the Suez Canal crisis when they turned MAGNIFICENT into an Army vehicles parking lot - at the expense of the Air Group, I might add.

So having any sort of capability to move equipment is doctrinally and culturally out of the question?

 

[FSTO]

So having any sort of capability to move equipment is doctrinally and culturally out of the question?

So is the army willing to drop one regiment each of armour, arty, and infantry to fund and staff a couple of carriers?

 

[suffolkowner]

So is the army willing to drop one regiment each of armour, arty, and infantry to fund and staff a couple of carriers?

isnt the Army already a token force?

Im curious what ships Canada could use to move people, equipment and supplies in a hot situation and how we would do it?

 

[FSTO]

isnt the Army already a token force?

Im curious what ships Canada could use to move people, equipment and supplies in a hot situation and how we would do it?

Fly the troops using a combo of C17's and Commercial wide bodies.
Containerize as much of the Army equipment as you can ship it via MARESK or other carriers.

 

[suffolkowner]

Fly the troops using a combo of C17's and Commercial wide bodies.
Containerize as much of the Army equipment as you can ship it via MARESK or other carriers.

I have no doubt we can ship in some conflicts ie Afghanistan but say reinforcing Europe vs Russia or Taiwan vs China? Or do we just assume that conflict goes nuclear quickly so no need?

 

[Fabius]

We would go to our standing offers, assuming we have some. We would ask if any of the standing offers can supply a ship or ships.
If no standing offer is available or works we would put the requirement up on MERX for the necessary 90 days and then look at the submissions and pick one.

Or we would ask the Americans for space on their reserve fleet, that’s likely a throw away option but it’s there.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The European Atlantic coast has some of the best , largest and most advanced harbours for containers and Ro-Ro ships. Unless the Russians make it to the coast of Europe so fast that we can't use them, they would receive all the traffic in the world - and definitely the puny Canadian Army heavy weapons holdings.

If the Russians are already at the coast, then we are in a "Build up England to Invade" scenario again, and it would be UK harbours that would do the same.

P.S.: Resupplying Europe by merchant ships unloading at French, Belgian, Dutch or German ports was already the way we were going to do it for WWIII during the Cold War.

P.P.S. : Considering how far into Ukraine the Russian forces have made it after two years, I think the Atlantic coast European harbours are a pretty safe bet.

 

[FSTO]

Or we would ask the Americans for space on their reserve fleet, that’s likely a throw away option but it’s there.

The Americans would be contracting civilian ships as well. Their mothball fleet would take too long to activate to be any use in a near peer conflict.

 

[suffolkowner]

Is not the danger the same as it was? Submarines? I dont see the receiving ports as relevant?
And yes this is not a particular Canadian problem even if unlikely
What was the composition of the merchant fleet in the 80's vs today?

 

[Fabius]

Currently the US has approx 41 ships in their Ready Reserve Fleet on 5 and 10 day notice to sails. They will likely be ready by the time the US Army divisions are ready to start loading. They do need extensive assistance from the civilian sector as the mobilization’s for Desert Storm and OIF proved.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Is not the danger the same as it was? Submarines? I dont see the receiving ports as relevant?
And yes this is not a particular Canadian problem even if unlikely
What was the composition of the merchant fleet in the 80's vs today?

All the dangers are the same as they were, but to a lesser extent. The Russians don't have even close to a quarter of the submarine force they had at the height of the Cold War. But there are always dangers in war where it comes to shipping materiel. If the Army is not willing to risk it, then it should stay in Canada.

The ports are relevant because everything heavy or bulky in the world travels by ships. Period. No ports, no ships. No ships, forget about reinforcing anyone, anywhere. Yes, even Taiwan would be reinforced by sea - Though I personally doubt very much that, if the PRC tried to invade Taiwan, Canada would send any soldier their way. Materiel and financial support, like Ukraine, yes, but no actual soldiers to fight on their side.

 

[suffolkowner]

All the dangers are the same as they were, but to a lesser extent. The Russians don't have even close to a quarter of the submarine force they had at the height of the Cold War. But there are always dangers in war where it comes to shipping materiel. If the Army is not willing to risk it, then it should stay in Canada.

The ports are relevant because everything heavy or bulky in the world travels by ships. Period. No ports, no ships. No ships, forget about reinforcing anyone, anywhere. Yes, even Taiwan would be reinforced by sea - Though I personally doubt very much that, if the PRC tried to invade Taiwan, Canada would send any soldier their way. Materiel and financial support, like Ukraine, yes, but no actual soldiers to fight on their side.

Theyre relevant in that they are dispersed and hard to cover from limited assets and unlikely to be under control sure but I dont see how that impacts the ship itself.

Im assuming in our total war scenario we are just nationalizing and seizing the ships required was more my angle. I have a hard time seeing a private company running provisions into Taiwan in a hot war. One of the many problems I can see in the Taiwan scenario, as its not quite as easy as driving across the border from Romania or Poland

I said before if we want some RO/RO ships we should just contract a few more from the Arctic resupply mission and kill two or three birds with one stone not unlike the Point class in the UK

 

[FSTO]

^^
In a wartime scenario we'd just do Ships Taken Up With Trade (STUFT) like the Brits did for the Falklands.
But as outlined in this article there is a whole host of issues that would need to be addressed.

Lessons for a Wartime Navy: STUFT Vessels in the Falklands War

The United States should take lessons on commercial ship conversions from the Falklands War.

www.usni.org

So in the end, I say screw it. Disband the Army and our contribution will be the protection (surface, subsurface and airborne) of the fleets of commercial ships heading to the warzone.

 

[PuckChaser]

So is the army willing to drop one regiment each of armour, arty, and infantry to fund and staff a couple of carriers?

Why is it always drop something to add more? We need 2% GDP, boosting PYs and ships for RCN is a good way to get there.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I said before if we want some RO/RO ships we should just contract a few more from the Arctic resupply mission and kill two or three birds with one stone not unlike the Point class in the UK

Except that there are no Ro-Ro ships doing the Arctic resupply mission because there are no harbours in the Arctic that can handle such vessels (there are in fact very few harbours at all).

The Arctic resupply is carried out by fuel tankers and general cargo ships. Since they cannot come alongside anywhere, they carry barges and lighters with very shallow draft and their own tugs and shoreside handling equipment - the ship's being equipped with all the heavy lift cranes necessary to launch these and then load them from the holds.

And in wartime, we do not nationalize the civilian ships: By decree, the government assumes control of all merchant vessels and directs what they load and where and where it is to be delivered and how (usually convoying, but independent routing is possible). That is called Naval Control of Shipping. As for civilian mariners, so long as they sail (for the higher pay now in place by necessity) they automatically become pressed into service as members of the Merchant Marine - specifically noted as "non-combatant" on their papers for Geneva Convention purposes. But, as this was recognized, finally, after a long and just battle, they are considered veterans once they leave the Merchant Marine or after the war is over.