We’re Spending $60-Billion FOR WHAT???

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.