I have a few problems with this article and its conclusions:
1. "Pirates off the coast of Africa? Assisting migrant refugees in the Mediterranean? Evacuating Canadian nationals from a foreign war or disaster? Responding to the growing military tension in the South China Sea? Supporting a United Nations peacekeeping mission? The Canadian Navy is no longer capable of mounting any of these missions without significant help from others."
Our frigates are more than capable of conducting these missions without "significant help". The only help we need is with refuelling, and even then, it almost makes more sense to do it the way we've been doing it; using USN tankers. Why deploy one of your own AORs when the USN already has a ton of them sailing around? Just to show that you can? Other than refuelling at sea, our Frigates have all the capability they need to accomplish these missions.
2. "The frigates are smaller, have a crew compliment of 220 sailors, carry one helicopter, have shorter-range radar, less firepower and far less capable command abilities."
The frigates are longer and wider, and only 300 tons lighter. The fewer crew needed, the better. They have improved, modern 3D radars, have ASuW and ASW capabilities that the 280s lacked completely, and they have superior command capabilities (Link 16). Yes, they lack the Area Air Defence capability of the 280s, and this is something that we sorely need. However, this article makes it sound like the CPFs are a bunch of shore patrol boats.
3. "According to retired officers and naval experts, the RCN has objectively deteriorated to its lowest capability in over 40 years."
I would like to echo what others have said before. Before the first gulf war, Canada had no guided-missile capability. Our weapons and sensors and command capabilities are far beyond what they were 40 years ago. One of our greatest capabilities, which isn't mentioned in this article, is one which is a corner stone of modern navies; interoperabiltiy. Between the technology (Link 11/16), common practices, and frequent joint exercises, RCN units mesh seemlessly with USN task groups.
4. "The loss of the destroyers means the Navy can no longer defend a formation against long-range threats, nor can it provide effective command and control. Without replenishment ships, it’s now impossible to sustain the fleet with the necessary supplies, ammunition and fuel over any distance."
I won't get into tactics, i'll just say it again: interoperability. We can provide effective command and control, so just STFU Maclean's. Finally, the last sentence is also a load of horse crap. It is entirely possibly to provide the necessary "supplies, ammunition and fuel", and I say it again, interoperability.
5. the "Todd/Lindberg classification system"
This list a poorly researched ranking system. Indonesia doesn't have an AORs and has fewer major surface combatants than the RCN. Bangladesh has a few small in-harbour tankers and a small ageing AOR that I doubt they could deploy over seas. It's like they just scanned the internet and looks at the number and type of vessels each navy has, without looking into the more important details: training, capability, and state of repair.
6. this one doesn't really have to do with the article but people quotes in it: "...claims that fixing the Navy would be “just about the top priority” for a Liberal government." and "...Harris promised that improving Canada’s Navy would be a priority of an NDP government."
Yea, we'll see about that after the election.
7. "Many Canadians know that, at the end of the Second World War, the Canadian Navy was the fifth-largest in the world."
I hate hearing this one. Most of that Navy was corvettes and frigates with little to no ASuW or AAW capability. Within about 30 days of the end of the second world war, almost the entire fleet of corvettes and frigates were decommisioned, dropping us much, much, much farther down the list.
/end
I won't go on about what I think we could do to improve the situation. A governemnt department as big as Public Works is not something someone like me can look at from the outside and figure out how to do it better. I will say, that this country lacks the public passion for defence which would enable politicians to take defence spending and procurement seriously.
As I once heard it said, it took us less time to liberate a continent than it has taken us to move NDHQ to a new building 15km away.
