Re-Post: North Korean missiles and Canadian missile defense

What This Navy Needs is a Capital Ship!

Vincent J. Curtis                                                                     19 December 2012

Despite being a thoroughgoing land-lubber, I’ve conceived the idea that the main effort of the Canadian Forces should lie in the navy.  But I need some help from the sailors out there in figuring out what the navy needs by way of equipment for it to fulfill the strategic role it can truly play in defense of Canada.

With the experience of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is unlikely that the United States or NATO are going to get themselves involved in another prolonged land war in Asia or Africa.  Typically, Canada gets involved in foreign wars on account of the distress of our allies; and since our allies are going to stay out of land wars for a while, so will Canada.

Nevertheless, the threats of terrorist states and of transnational terrorist organizations will remain for a while.  Any strategic defense review will typically name Iran, North Korea, and a few other countries across the ocean as sources of threats to western security.  Now, we hope that no one around the world wants to make little old Canada a target of terrorism or of some other kind of military strike; but it would be wrong and foolish of DND and the government to count on that hope.  Hope, as they say, is not a strategy.

A little bit of deterrence would go a long way toward making that hope secure.  We have no quarrel with Iran or North Korea, but Canada did embarrass the Islamic regime by the rescue of the American diplomats in 1980 and a rickety missile fired from North Korea aimed at Seattle could land on Vancouver, instead.

The army does not have, nor can it reasonably be expected to have, the ability to project force overseas, unaided.  The United States maintains force projection capability independent of any other country, but Canada relies on the United States and NATO partners to project military force beyond the borders of Canada.  The RCAF lacks the range to deliver a blow anywhere around the world.  Costs and diplomatic issues render it improbable for the RCAF to acquire that “strike anywhere, anytime” capability before of the outbreak of a real war.

Which brings us to the navy.   A blue water navy inherently has the capability to “strike anywhere, anytime.”  No diplomatic surprise there.  The current construction program of the RCN, however, seems to me to lack an essential element: a capital ship.  The mere existence of an operational capital ship at sea represents a threat and deterrence to any foe.

A capital ship these days commonly means some behemoth aircraft carrier.  Big gunned battleships such as the USS New Jersey are widely considered obsolete by modern standards of naval combat.   But the military capability of Canada’s potential foes have no naval capability to speak of.  They have no aircraft carrier, or aircraft.  Consequently, for the potential foes in mind a battleship is not obsolete and, properly designed, might be useful indeed.  The New Jersey would have a role today, but for its age.

Here is where I need help from the sailors out there.  The development of cruise missiles means that the striking range of a ship can be quite long, 2500 km.  A battleship would provide the deck space and storage space for a lot of cruise missiles, and a few Harpoon missiles.  For shore bombardment, old fashioned naval gunfire with big, old fashioned guns having a range of 40,000 m or so seems reasonable, based on World War II standards.  Since this ship is meant for Canada’s navy, it should be smallish - 15,000 tons displacement.  This would limit the number of guns to six in two turrets and a caliber of 12” approximately.  These dimensions are about the size of the German heavy cruisers of the Hipper class.  Speed should be in the order of 33 – 35 knots, and I’d like the vessel to be nuclear powered since this would give it unlimited range.

The reason for the guns is that a lot of the potential threats to Canada have ocean coastlines with port facilities and large cities within a few kilometers of the coast.  Shells are much cheaper than guided missiles, and modern shells can be nearly as precisely placed as a missile can.  The sheer moral effect of a heavy cruiser with big guns loitering offshore can be profound.

Sailors, help me out.  What do you think of this potential design?