Naval Gazing

Vincent J. Curtis

2 June 20

Why does Canada even have a navy?  We’re going to spend $62 billion (allegedly) to replace the one we have, so before we break the bank, let’s understand why.  When the RCN lost its replenishment vessels, it was downgraded to an “offshore regional coastal defense force” from a “multiregional power projection force,” so we mustn’t forget replenishment in the strategic picture.

The RCN came into its own during the Secord World War.  By 1945, Canada boasted the fifth largest navy in the world, floating over 1,100 boats.  Canada possessed two aircraft carriers and two light cruisers.  The most famous craft were the Tribal class destroyers and the corvettes.  The RCN was designed for convoy escort, of which anti-submarine warfare is the central component.  The Tribals proved useful also in the English Channel against German E-boat raiders.

The RCN was put back into water after the heating up of the Cold War and the outbreak of the Korean War.   Canada acquired the HMCS Bonaventure, a light aircraft carrier, and equipped her with McDonnell F2H Banshee jet fighters and Grumman Tracker ASW aircraft.  The navy also recommissioned WWII vessels.  The Bonaventure was scrapped in 1970, and Canada acquired four Iroquois class ASW destroyers (since retired) and the Halifax class patrol frigates, which were useful in ASW and anti-piracy patrols.  These are coming to the end of their useful lives and are scheduled to be replaced with fifteen Type 26 frigate, at a cost of $4 billion each.

The choice of fifteen of the same type indicates a lack of imagination and a lack of vision.  Navy brass doesn’t seem to have a particular purpose in mind for a fleet of slow frigates.  The Type 26 was designed as an ASW escort vessel for the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy.  These fleet carriers are conventionally powered and hence seem intended for operations in the North Atlantic.  The Type 26 will be equipped for the ASW role and can provide close-in air defence for the carriers.

But why the Type 26 for Canada?  The Type 26 is slow and expensive.  Why spend $4 billion on a 7,000 ton frigate when for only $2 billion (U.S.) you can have a 10,000 ton Arleigh Burke class missile destroyer?  The top speed of the Type 26 is 26 knots, while that of an Arleigh Burke is 35 knots.  An Aleigh Burke is configurable for ASW as well as long range strike, as the Type 26 will be.  Bigger, faster, cheaper.

Strategic realities are that the naval service is the only one Canada has that can deliver a strategic strike anywhere in the world independent of any other power.

Former CDS General Rick Hillier said that Canada needed a “big honkin’ ship.”   So, why not build ten of the Type 26, and invest five frigates worth of cash into a big honkin’ ship?  A 15,000 ton displacement heavy cruiser would have all the deck space needed to deliver a multiplicity of heavy blows, and would form the core of an honest-to-god Canadian naval task force.

Modern naval warfare is designed around missile technology.  A modern naval battle would take place with opposing ships out of sight of each other, with helicopters and radars providing target acquisition.  Missiles would be used to attack opposing ships and defend against incoming missiles.  But there is a gap in naval capability that used to be filled by the battleship, now derided as obsolete.

Battleships captivated the imagination because of the majestic power they obviously disposed in their massive guns.  Diplomacy in peacetime occurred when battleships sailed.  Allied battleships in WWII used their heavy guns primarily to support landing operations.  Long barrelled, heavy guns are still intimidating and, with modern artillery guidance technology, still capable, and would be a versatile weapons system on a ship big enough to carry them.

A hybrid of heavy cruiser and missile cruiser could form the core of a uniquely Canadian naval task force.

-30-.