Canadian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
In few days Bridge retired, placed in reserve, 2 status reserve 1st ready eventually for few weeks with a small crew and 2nd mothballed requires months for use...

Bridge reserve status unclear.

Very damage withdrawn only class fast combat support ship to reserve they are the only ones who can navigate as the same speed as a TF in more the more big CS in the world and Bridge get only 16 years !!! stupid really.

I think so late for Canada now JSS programm is launched.
 

Bernard

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


How big is the Canadian navy? I feel like so much in the news about retiring ships, ship fires and sub fires? Is it because they have older ships?

Engine fire off of Hawaii takes down HMCS Protecteur; Both existing ships forcibly retired; Canada reportedly looking at leasing 2 American T-AOE fast support ships – what are the considerations on each side?

Sept 23/14: Rent a T-AOE? CBC reports that Canada is considering a lease of the 49,600t Supply Class fast combat support ship USNS Bridge [T-AOE-10], which was recently inactivated by the US Navy because it costs $75 million per year to keep it in operation.

Older oilers cost about $40 million, and the new T-AKE dry supply ships cost aout $50 million, but they limit the speed of any naval group using them to under 20 knots. Carrier Strike Group transits are often 20-24 knots, and 25-26 knots is not uncommon; the Supply Class are the ships that can keep up. USNS Rainier [T-AOE-7] is scheduled to be held in reserve for another year, but current plans would also remove her from the fleet, over strenuous objections from fleet commanders.

A Canadian lease could help solve the US Navy’s problem by transferring the operating costs, while helping Canada at the same time. For the USA, the question is whether to give up control over the ships’ future usage, such as it is. If they believe the Canadians will send their T-AOEs and frigates to accompany US Navy strike groups often enough, it could still be a net plus. For the Canadians, the size difference is a big deal, because it affects required infrastructure. The USD $75 million per year operating cost could also be an issue to a military that may not have enough funds for operations under planned budgets. The good news is that crewing won’t be a big problem, since the 1960s-era Protecteur Class required almost twice as many crew as the late-1990s era Supply Class do. Sources: CASR external link, “The JSS Project: Delays, delivery dates, urgency, and alternatives” | CBC, “Canada’s navy looks to fill fleet gap with purchase from U.S.” | Defense News, “Canada To Seek NATO, US Support For Naval Air Defense, Resupply” | Defense News “Big Supply Ships May Get Reprieve – For Now” (July 2014).

Sept 19/14: Retired. Both HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur are forced into retirement. HMCS Protecteur has never recovered from its engine fire (q.v. Feb 27/14) and collision with the destroyer HMCS Algonquin (q.v. Aug 31/13), which will also be scrapped. HMCS Preserver was found to have serious corrosion problems, and the destroyer HMCS Iroquois was scheduled for retirement in 2015 anyway, after 43 years of service.

Sources: CTV News, “Navy sending four Cold War era ships into retirement” | Nanaimo Daily News, “Navy to drop four ships, including Protecteur and Algonquin”.

Feb 28/14: Fire. As if its recent crash wasn’t bad enough (q.v. Aug 31/13), HMCS Protecteur suffers an engine room fire en route to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. She is taken under tow by the American destroyer USS Chosin, but the tow line breaks in rough seas. HMCS Protecteur is eventually towed into Pearl Harbor on March 6/14 by the fleet ocean tug USNS Sioux [T-ATF 171].

About 20 crew suffered minor injuries, but the damage to the ship is more serious. the engine room and propulsion control machinery is badly damaged, and there’s fire and smoke damage to adjoining compartments. Some doubt the ship will ever sail again, and she has to be towed back to Canada after the damage assessment is complete. Sources: CBC, “Line towing fire-damaged HMCS Protecteur to Hawaii breaks” | CBC, “HMCS Protecteur towed into Pearl Harbor” | US Navy, “HMCS Protecteur, Crew Arrive Safely to Pearl Harbor” | CBC, “HMCS Protecteur too badly damaged to sail home on her own”.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


How big is the Canadian navy? I feel like so much in the news about retiring ships, ship fires and sub fires? Is it because they have older ships?

Currently 13 major surface combatants, 4 submarines, and 12 minor warfare vessels.

The Royal Canadian Navy is experiencing a major rust out. The supply ships should have been retired decades ago. Ditto the destroyers. The submarines were bought used and were never properly taken care of while in storage. And the frigates need their mid-life overhauls, while the minor warfare ships won't get theirs.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
Major red flags regarding the RCN's readiness, after a 2013 report surfaces saying that the combat readiness of the RCN fails to meet RCN standards:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Royal Canadian Navy's combat readiness questioned in internal review
Report finds challenges in maintenance of ships and training, as navy forced 'to do less with less'

The Royal Canadian Navy is facing serious challenges to meet its combat readiness requirements, according to a review by the Department of National Defence.

The Chief Review Services Evaluation cites a range of issues, from a lack of maintenance staff to keep ships seaworthy to inadequate combat training.

The report finds that having a combat-ready navy is essential and consistent with the government's priorities.
"During recent years there has been a steady decline in the RCN's ability to achieve the required levels of readiness, to the point that it is currently challenged to meet some of its readiness requirements," one of the report's key findings says.

Another key finding notes, "the Navy will be obliged to do less with less."

The report also found the cost of staffing the navy's Maritime Command and Control has increased "significantly" with the closing of coastal offices and the move of personnel to Ottawa in recent years.

The report recommends the navy review its current readiness program, find budget savings and work to prevent any future reduction in ship readiness, as well as reorganize training and staffing to ensure the right people are in the right jobs.

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, commander of the navy, says that despite the challenges, the navy has "consistently met government of Canada and DND expectations and demands for the conduct of operations."

Norman also notes that the navy continues to find new efficiencies and ways to meet the mandate set by the Canadian government.

The latest report covers the period between November 2012 and July 2013, and is part of a five-year evaluation plan.

In an email to CBC News, Defence Minister Rob Nicholson's press secretary said the government has embarked on the most intensive and comprehensive period of fleet modernization and renewal in Canada’s peacetime history.

"This includes the modernization of 12 Halifax-class frigates, the operationalization of the Victoria-class submarines, the integration of the Cyclone CH-148 helicopters, the modernization of the Aurora aircraft and the purchase of Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, Joint Support Ships, and Canadian Surface Combatants," Johanna Quinney said in the email.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Its not just the Navy either. There Air force's main chopper is the CH146 Griffon its based off the civilian Bell 412. A twin engine derivative of the long lived Huey. They were supposed to retire in 2020 but there is no evidence of a replacement program. And the RCAF has no attack choppers to boot. Its a shoe string force model.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Was in Aircraft carrierII thread
O Canada.......

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Meanwhile, they'll be raking in some hefty cash from the penalty fees. Not too bad for what essentially amounted to doing nothing...




O Harper... Always so eager to spend Canadian taxpayer money to curry favors with the Americans...

considering the state of the Royal Canadian Navy and Air force.... your both wrong.
  1. the Canadian destroyer and escort fleet is in bad shape. If Canada wanted to spend money on there fleet there best investment would be a modern fleet of Destroyers. that should be there priority if they intend to get a Amphib fleet as said amphb would need escorts and the most the Canadians can muster on there own is one destroyer slated to retire and Frigates
  2. A Mistral buy would not favor the Us it would Favor the French, This is not the first word on this by the way the Joint Support Ship program and Amphibious Assault Ship Project have been around since 2008.
  3. The Canadian navy lacks any Amphibious connectors, No LCAC
  4. The Canadian Military operates differently then the US Or PLA, the Royal Canadian Air Force operate all Aircraft Fixed wing and Rotary. in terms of Transport Choppers The RCAF is not so good. the are operating either older units stretched to there lifespan or small numbers of modern types. In Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan they had to rent Choppers. there primary chopper is the CH146 Griffon. a civilian chopper mounting guns. optimum use of a Mistral is as a LHA/D using Vtol fighters, best being F35B second best being Harrier, after that you need a combat chopper like Apache or Cobra. Canada has 0 attack choppers and 0 Vtol fighters.
  5. Finally we move to the Canadian Army. fine troops, no Amphibious capacity. they can ford, they can riverine they cant cross a ocean.
To be blunt They are a navy in piss poor shape for a Amphib, No real escorts, no mission air capabilities, no Sea Capabilities. If Canada wanted in on Amphibious capabilities they would need a massive investment requiring buys of basically the entire force.
The Russian Navy had at least the base line of needs Landing craft, attack aircraft with Vtol, and escorts.

If Canada really wants to get a Mistral Class LHA, Then they need to
  1. Add new Destroyers.
    the Canadian military already has requirements for a Single class Surface combatant based likely based on the
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  2. buy modern transport and dedicated attack choppers.
    the mission need is the light and medium classes given the fact there Griffons were supposed to be phased out by 2020 and the common training between the US and RCAF as well as favoring of Bell the UH1Y and AH1Z would be the best options. second option would be the UH60M and AH64E which has commonality with the CH148, Which could also be a option if configured for combat use. additionally if Canada goes forward with a F35 buy then a number of F35B's would be a prime option.
  3. procure LCAT or LCAC type connectors.
    the Engin de débarquement amphibie rapide (EDA-R) aka Landing Craft Catamaran or Landing Craft Air Cushion or Ship-to-Shore Connector
  4. buy a true Amphibious assault vehicle.
    AAV7A1 would be the prime option, secondary options are rare these days but potentially trying to get in on the USMC's ACV or the French Armoured Multirole Carrier optimizing the Coyote into a Amphibious platform have some potions but limited. and there is also the ARISGATOR/VAL kit retrofit for the M113 vehicle family.
  5. buy Amphibious scout craft.
    lighter Amphibious vehicles to scout for landing and act as logistical platforms. Gibbs Amphibious vehicles are really perfect for this role.
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
Re: Aircraft Carriers II

considering the state of the Royal Canadian Navy and Air force.... your both wrong.
  1. the Canadian destroyer and escort fleet is in bad shape. If Canada wanted to spend money on there fleet there best investment would be a modern fleet of Destroyers. that should be there priority if they intend to get a Amphib fleet as said amphb would need escorts and the most the Canadians can muster on there own is one destroyer slated to retire and Frigates
  2. A Mistral buy would not favor the Us it would Favor the French, This is not the first word on this by the way the Joint Support Ship program and Amphibious Assault Ship Project have been around since 2008.
  3. The Canadian navy lacks any Amphibious connectors, No LCAC
  4. The Canadian Military operates differently then the US Or PLA, the Royal Canadian Air Force operate all Aircraft Fixed wing and Rotary. in terms of Transport Choppers The RCAF is not so good. the are operating either older units stretched to there lifespan or small numbers of modern types. In Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan they had to rent Choppers. there primary chopper is the CH146 Griffon. a civilian chopper mounting guns. optimum use of a Mistral is as a LHA/D using Vtol fighters, best being F35B second best being Harrier, after that you need a combat chopper like Apache or Cobra. Canada has 0 attack choppers and 0 Vtol fighters.
  5. Finally we move to the Canadian Army. fine troops, no Amphibious capacity. they can ford, they can riverine they cant cross a ocean.
To be blunt They are a navy in piss poor shape for a Amphib, No real escorts, no mission air capabilities, no Sea Capabilities. If Canada wanted in on Amphibious capabilities they would need a massive investment requiring buys of basically the entire force.
The Russian Navy had at least the base line of needs Landing craft, attack aircraft with Vtol, and escorts.

You know that Canada wasn't involved in Iraq, right?

And why would Canada need those capabilities? Nobody is going to attack Canada from the sea. The only times Canada sends out its navies is in support of UN or NATO missions.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Re: Aircraft Carriers II

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Check again Sol.

US military Forces operate separately form it but Canadian Military forces often participate in UN Peacekeeping operations. the Program mentioned was drafted directly to support UN Peace keeping missions where the logistical and mission needs are identical. on top of that they were also drafted after Humanitarian Aid missions.

Addendum
And As to no one attacking Canada by sea, might want to read up on the Russian Canadian Arctic dispute.

Still As I said It's not likely to happen.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Re: Aircraft Carriers II

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Check again Sol.

US military Forces operate separately form it but Canadian Military forces often participate in UN Peacekeeping operations. the Program mentioned was drafted directly to support UN Peace keeping missions where the logistical and mission needs are identical. on top of that they were also drafted after Humanitarian Aid missions.

Addendum
And As to no one attacking Canada by sea, might want to read up on the Russian Canadian Arctic dispute.

Still As I said It's not likely to happen.

wikipedia article said:
At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq– three ships and 100 exchange officers– exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Canada might be offering to buy French Mistrals, but remember that it was American pressure that led to the halt of the sales in the first place.

It's especially ironic since Canada wouldn't even have functional helicopters to put on it...
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Re: Aircraft Carriers II

hence my listing. If they lack the Escorts it's a target., if they lack the Aircraft it's useless, if they lack the amphibious platforms it's useless.
And the Canadian Military lacks all three. To get it it would require investment of maybe as much as double to triple the unit cost of the Ship it's self. That's not counting the Escorts as They need those anyway and will one way or the other have to buy them.
 
Top