Vincent J. Curtis
14 Sept 2017
As reported by David Pugliese in Esprit de Corps Volume 24, Issue 7, the Trudeau Liberal government
is committed to spending up to $60-Billion to rebuild Canada’s surface
combatant fleet. This is up from the
original $26-Billion the Harper Conservative government believed was necessary
for the project.
Minister of National Defense Harjit Sajjan confirmed that
the existing surface combatant fleet of frigates and destroyers will be replaced
by “Fifteen [frigates]. Not ‘up to’ 15
and not 12. And definitely not six,
which is the number the previous government’s plan would have paid for, as the
Parliamentary Budge Officer reported.”
At $4-billion each, these Canadian frigates must the most
expensive lightweight punchers in human history. Let’s compare. What could $60-Billion buy in terms of combat
ships today?
For $60-billion, Canada could buy six of the 100,000 ton Nimitz- class aircraft carriers. The United States only has ten of them, and
these are the backbone of the US Navy’s world-wide carrier fleet.
For $60-Billion Canada could buy thirty of the 9,000 ton Aleigh Burke- class guided missile
destroyers. The United States presently
has sixty-four of these on active service.
When in April Prime Minister Trudeau urged the world community to seek justice
in the chemical attack that Bashir al-Assad made against his own citizens,
President Donald Trump dispatched two of these to deal with issue. If the RCN were similarly equipped, Mr.
Trudeau would not have to wave his arms fecklessly and call for others to act
in fulfillment of his virtue signalling.
He could order it done himself.
For $60-billion, Canada could buy twelve of the brand new
78,000 ton Queen Elizabeth – class
aircraft carriers from the UK, which only plans to acquire two.
You get the idea. For
$60-billion spent on naval construction, Canada could change the balance of
naval power in the world.
But we won’t. For
$60-billion Canada is going to acquire fifteen 5,000 ton frigates of limited combat
power, speed, and range. These surface
combatant ships are aptly designed to re-fight the Battle of the Atlantic,
which pitted German U-boats against corvettes.
Except the Germans are on our side now, and the only conceivable
submarine fleet that would oppose Canada is the Russian one.
Russia is not well situated to interdict sea traffic across
the North Atlantic, and, besides, the United States submarine fleet have that
problem addressed.
What our construction program lacks is actual combat
power. There is no doubt that frigates
are necessary. But in today’s world, and
for the next twenty to thirty years out, naval power is lacking in a
hard-skinned fighting ship. For a middle
power like Canada, this fighting ship takes the form of a 20,000 to 25,000 ton
nuclear-powered battlecruiser carrying six – twelve inch guns with plenty of
deck space for Tomahawk cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, and air-defense
and missile-defense guns. Nuclear power
gives the ship unlimited range and enables a speed of over thirty knots. A battlecruiser is preferred because it is
less technically sophisticated to operate than a carrier.
One of these would cost much less than a Nimitz- class aircraft carrier, also
nuclear powered. And one or two is all
Canada would require.
Much as I love our east coast ship builders, it is plainly
cheaper for Canada to acquire its combatant ships abroad. The reason for placing orders for warships in
Canadian shipyards is for domestic economic benefits, but in this case we need
to look at a larger picture.
Canada is re-negotiating NAFTA with the Trump
administration, and can expect a hard bargainer across the table. Sixty billion dollars represents a huge
bargaining chip on the Canadian side. In
exchange for American concessions on the trade deal, Canada could place orders
with American shipyards for Arleigh Burke
class guided missile destroyers – a proven modern design with all the costs of
development fully depreciated. We get a
lot more combat power for our defense money, Canadian exporters retain or get
freer access to U.S. markets, our marketing boards are left alone, and the east
coast shipbuilders get put on welfare.
Those are the economics of it. Our east coast shipbuilders are too pricy for
the naval combat power the rest of us have a right to expect. We might like our neighbourhood grocer, but
we think nothing of shopping at Wal-mart for the better prices. For $60-billion in expenditure, Canadian
taxpayer have a right to expect serious naval combat power, and we won’t get it
with fifteen frigates.
-30-
A version of this appeared in Esprit de Corps magazine Vol 24, Issue 9.
The article sparked a reply from Irving Ship Building, contending some of my claims. I would like to include Irving's reply with this post for the sake of completeness, but cannot as the Irving communication: "contains confidential
information intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. It may
also be privileged or otherwise protected by other legal principles. Any
unauthorized disclosure, use, dissemination or copying, in whole or in part, is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your
computer system and records. Thank you."
Included with the communication was an economic assessment from Price Coopers Waterhouse (commissioned by Irving, I suppose) which purports to show the superior economic benefits of building the frigates in Canada as opposed to purchasing those ships from an overseas supplier. I read the PwC report and remain unimpressed. Perhaps I'll write a refutation some time.
