Senator Kenny Wants to Beef up the Navy..article from 14 Jun 08 Chronicle Herald

[Ex-Dragoon]

It would be nice but where is the money and people coming from? Wistful thinking unfortunately.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1062008.html

Senator: Navy must be made bigger, better, cheaper
Kenny: Canada needs to double size of force
By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter
Sat. Jun 14 - 5:22 AM
Canada should double the size of its navy as well as beef up the coast guard with 3,000 more people manning armed ships, the chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defence said Thursday in Halifax.
Over the next two decades, the navy needs to roughly double its number of sailors to about 20,000 people and increase the number of warships in its fleet from 30 to 60, Liberal Senator Colin Kenny told about 125 people attending a maritime security conference at Dalhousie University.
"The government needs an effective method of deterring people from messing with us and messing with our interests," Mr. Kenny said.
Canada is "asleep just as England and the U.S. were in the 1930s," and our citizens think war at home is impossible "because people like us," he said.
"Even if I am wrong, those who would mock this perspective still want Canada to be engaged in the world and exert a positive influence," Mr. Kenny said. "But they don’t realize that we no longer have the capacity to do that."
His $28-billion wish list of new warships includes 26 single-class surface combatants (vessels meant to replace frigates and destroyers), six supply ships and six submarines. The outspoken senator argued that the navy should also convert its 12 coastal defence vessels back to their original role as minesweepers and buy 10 Orca-class training vessels.
"The navy tends to aim low, shoot low and they always get less than what they ask for," Mr. Kenny said. "So we should be aiming a little higher and we’ll get better results."
That expanded navy should concentrate more on operations in the Pacific Ocean rather than the Atlantic, he said.
"If you want to play in the Atlantic, you’re playing where your father played," he said.
"If you want to play in the Pacific, you’re playing where your son will play."
The Pacific already has 3 ½ times more trade than the Atlantic, military historian Jack Granatstein told the conference.
"This means that the naval base at Esquimalt must be expanded," Mr. Granatstein said. "China and Russia and perhaps India will jostle the United States navy for control of that ocean. We know where our loyalties must lie."
The coast guard should get eight new Arctic patrol vessels the Conservative government has already announced will be built for the navy, Mr. Kenny said, noting it also needs more icebreakers.
"The coast guard needs faster, better, cheaper, meaner vessels to guard Canada’s coasts," said Mr. Kenny, who argued the vessels should be equipped with heavy machine-guns and cannons capable of stopping a ship.
"One of the coast guard’s principle missions . . . should be interdicting vessels off our coasts that mean to do us harm or violate our laws."
They should police the Arctic, rather than the navy, because the coast guard has far more experience operating in ice, he said.
"We don’t envision any role for the navy in the Arctic," Mr. Kenny said.
He argued Canada should enter into 50-year contracts to build its own ships at three yards on the West Coast, East Coast and Quebec.
"If you’re calling a spade a spade, it’s a monopoly," Mr. Kenny said.
While Mr. Granatstein said Canada needs "a long-term, rational, continuous build policy," he said some ships should be purchased abroad to keep costs down.
"Planning and preparation has never been the Canadian forte," Mr. Granatstein said. "We usually wing it, play catch-up (and) rely on our friends to cover for us until we finally get our act together.
"I don’t think the future strategic environment will let us get away with this much longer.
"The military and terrorist threats that are building up, the climactic and environmental disasters that loom, the mass movements of displaced populations that are sure to wash up on our shores, all these demand that we prepare now."
( clambie@herald.ca)

 

[Harley Sailor]

Having sailed on three generations of Canadian war ships, I can't agree more.

 

[Kirkhill]

The coast guard should get eight new Arctic patrol vessels the Conservative government has already announced will be built for the navy, Mr. Kenny said, noting it also needs more icebreakers.
"The coast guard needs faster, better, cheaper, meaner vessels to guard Canada’s coasts," said Mr. Kenny, who argued the vessels should be equipped with heavy machine-guns and cannons capable of stopping a ship.
"One of the coast guard’s principle missions . . . should be interdicting vessels off our coasts that mean to do us harm or violate our laws."
They should police the Arctic, rather than the navy, because the coast guard has far more experience operating in ice, he said.
"We don’t envision any role for the navy in the Arctic," Mr. Kenny said.

This resurrects an old debate round here:  Should the Navy learn how to operate in the ice or should the Coast Guard learn how to shoot?

IIRC the consensus was the it would be simpler to teach the Navy to operate in the ice:  Mark being of the contrary opinion. 

And do I detect a logical non sequitur in the Senator's argument?  The coasties need guns to interdict the bad guys and we need to patrol the arctic but the navy doesn't need to patrol the arctic because the arctic doesn't need guns?
If the coasties need guns to interdict "vessels off our coasts that mean to do us harm or violate our laws" why would they not encounter those types of vessels in the Arctic as much as the Atlantic and the Pacific?

Grizzly poachers shoot at Wardens in our Parks.  Wouldn't Polar Bear poachers shoot at the coasties in the Arctic?  The Spanish Turbot fishermen had to fired on to cause them to heave-to.  Wouldn't Danish Shrimpers also be as reluctant to stop in the Arctic?

Or is the Senator, for whom I have a lot of respect - he and his committee kept Defence issues to the fore during "The Decade of Darkness" - suggesting that the Coasties be equipped to tackle Chinese submarines operating off Vancouver Island?

For me, I like the clarity of having the Coasties and the Mounties doing the policing and watching and having the  Forces (Navy and Air Force) doing the shooting if shooting needs to be done.

Having said that - I do still like the idea of converting a couple of Frigates worth ( or 50% of the DDH's crews released through new technology in a replacement programme  - Shot, Over Ex-D) into a dozen patrol vessels with crews of 30 or so and room for lots of kit and passengers.

 

[MedTechStudent]

It would be nice but where is the money and people coming from?

Gas prices maybe?  Maybe then I would not be as mad about spending 1.30+ per litre.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Having said that - I do still like the idea of converting a couple of Frigates worth ( or 50% of the DDH's crews released through new technology in a replacement programme  - Shot, Over Ex-D) into a dozen patrol vessels with crews of 30 or so and room for lots of kit and passengers. 

My stance, opinion and experience have not changed an iota.

 

[Kirkhill]

My stance, opinion and experience have not changed an iota.

Figured as much.  ;D

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

This resurrects an old debate round here:  Should the Navy learn how to operate in the ice or should the Coast Guard learn how to shoot?

IIRC the consensus was the it would be simpler to teach the Navy to operate in the ice:  Mark being of the contrary opinion. 

And do I detect a logical non sequitur in the Senator's argument?  The coasties need guns to interdict the bad guys and we need to patrol the arctic but the navy doesn't need to patrol the arctic because the arctic doesn't need guns?
If the coasties need guns to interdict "vessels off our coasts that mean to do us harm or violate our laws" why would they not encounter those types of vessels in the Arctic as much as the Atlantic and the Pacific?

Grizzly poachers shoot at Wardens in our Parks.  Wouldn't Polar Bear poachers shoot at the coasties in the Arctic?  The Spanish Turbot fishermen had to fired on to cause them to heave-to.  Wouldn't Danish Shrimpers also be as reluctant to stop in the Arctic?

Or is the Senator, for whom I have a lot of respect - he and his committee kept Defence issues to the fore during "The Decade of Darkness" - suggesting that the Coasties be equipped to tackle Chinese submarines operating off Vancouver Island?

For me, I like the clarity of having the Coasties and the Mounties doing the policing and watching and having the  Forces (Navy and Air Force) doing the shooting if shooting needs to be done.

Having said that - I do still like the idea of converting a couple of Frigates worth ( or 50% of the DDH's crews released through new technology in a replacement programme  - Shot, Over Ex-D) into a dozen patrol vessels with crews of 30 or so and room for lots of kit and passengers.

I still like my idea of starting with Navy Vessels (with lots of guns) doing ALL the patrolling, and then adding an RCMP detachment onto each vessel to handle any policing issues that arise.

And if Navy Personnel don't currently have the training or expertise to operate in ice as well as the Coast Guard, then add the friggin' capability:
1)  Give signing bonuses to get experienced Coast Guard personnel into the Navy
2)  Transfer Coast Guard Personnel on a temporary basis to Naval Training (both as part of the training schools, and then as on-board trainers).

Bottom Line:  The status quo is accepted far too often because it's the status quo.  If change needs to be made, we need to stop worrying about hurt feelings and do what needs to be done.


Matthew. 

 

[Sub_Guy]

The only way we are going to get more ships is if we embrace technology that will allow fewer people to do the same job as our currents ships perform, I am in favour of adapting newer technologies which would allow us to do that.  With the projected crew for the new JSS ships to be less than that of the current AOR's it seems to be the way that NDHQ is thinking too.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes, if they can man the ship with less people and more automation that is indeed the direction we will go.  However, the Americans have had some teething problems with the new San Antonio class vessles.  The automation is so new and cutting edge in most respects that they were haveing hardware/software interface issues that was casuing them no end of grief.  Perhaps by the time we get our finger out of our anus these problems will be less of a problem.

A fellow HT here locally was a merchant sailor prior to joining the CF.  He was dumbfounded by the manpower requirements we use for deck evolutions in particular such as slipping and tying up for example.  He said that on his ship there were three of them to do it all.  I am sure that they will find a balance somewhere between the two extremes for the end product. 

 

[CougarKing]

It's about time. And the fact that this Senator was a Liberal shows that not all of them are anti-military. I wonder what the NDPers have to say about this?

 

[Harley Sailor]

The Spanish Turbot fishermen had to fired on to cause them to heave-to.  Wouldn't Danish Shrimpers also be as reluctant to stop in the Arctic?

I remember this well as my daughter was born while I was at see onboard the war ship that was greatly involved.  The one thing I don't remember is seeing shots fired "to cause them to heave-to."  I must be getting older then I thought.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'll sit corrected Harley - my memory of news stories playing me false.   

 

[stegner]

I think it was a .50 cal on a DFO vessel that fired some warning shots. 

 

[Neill McKay]

I think it was a .50 cal on a DFO vessel that fired some warning shots. 

That's right.

 

[Sub Standard]

All this talk of new hulls and more automation is well and good but we still can't get enough techs to maintain the equipment we have now let alone adding even more stuff for them to maintain