I would add to the discussion that the navy chief, VAdm Topshee, mused as to the desirability of an assault ship or two - such vessels are designed to carry troops and their gear to a trouble spot and land and support them, along with other warships, aircraft. This is a good idea in our context in terms of defense of the north. Why? Well our Cdn Rangers may need back up one day and we'd be hard pressed to provide it. Such a vessel with its troops would be just the ticket. At the same time, we need our own ice breaker fleet, which with a Finnish design might be doable fairly quickly. Now that the coast guard has been amalgamated with the navy, the co-ordination of civil ice breaker functions and naval can be accommodated.
Bottom line, if Canada is to step up and meaningfully contribute to NATO and NA defence, then defending our Arctic territories would be an ideal function. We need to declare it, create a strategy, identify requirements and build, operate and establish a presence with teeth. All very doable.
We could also offer to help Denmark in the defence of Greenland and branch out with a similar offer to Iceland. We need to step up and demonstrate that we are a rational member of the G7 and not the coat check guy.
A thing I learned in leadership: the people with balls, and brains, the people we need to follow, project optimism. It's neither naive nor quaint, but true that the future is made.
When the going gets tough, the naysayers, nihilists, get sidelined because they don't like fun, or being happy and most of us do.
Canada has an incredible amount of intellectual horsepower, technical knowledge, management/leadership expertise, and a generational memory of tough times. And we are not as soft as Americans; we are harder stuff.
Having spent time at sea, I can tell you our maritime skills and experience are admired the world over.
More of this please. There are green shoots in lots of areas of Canada (nuclear energy is another) and giving people something to see as a hopeful future in important along with highlighting the (all too many) failures of this country.
A timely subject Matt, and very well described. I have been scribbling on Canadian naval history for some decades, and it’s not as entirely dismal a record as the media might have us believe — although in truth it’s not as great as it could have been, but there have been as many ups as downs. Pardon the shameless self-promotion, but as a long-time devoted subscriber to The Line, I have only slight hesitation in noting that I have just published a book on the history of Canadian warship and maritime aircraft, “Guardians of The North”, that covers those ups and downs from naval, political and economic perspectives, concluding with observations on the presently-envisioned new acquisitions:
Licensing a design is like licensing a patent. Someone else builds the thing, we collect a modest fee (relative to the construction cost).
A really great announcement would be that Canada has ordered 8 or 10 icebreakers from Seaspan. Real jobs in Canada.
And we could assign a couple to keep Churchill, MB open year round for the LNG plant we could connect to AB & SK natural gas. And we could park a couple at Greenland and jointly with Denmark declare Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea soverign territory. Show'm the Donroe Doctrine don't apply north of the 48th.
An even better outcome would be that another country has ordered 8 or 10 to be built in Canada and delivered to an ally!! We’re a long way away from being globally competitive though.
Some years ago, Canada decided to build its own warships, rather than buy from countries like South Korea or Japan and adapt to our needs. The rationale at that time was that we wanted to develop our own production capacities. Other countries, such as Australia, took the other route.
I'm a great believer in the learning curve and learning by doing. Canada has spread its naval shipbuilding program over at least three shipyards. That sounds more like a regional development strategy. Developing excellence in naval shipbuilding would have suggested a single supplier. I do understand the political constraints, but still.
I have little knowledge of naval doctrine. However, recent events in the Ukraine-Russia war suggest to me that things have changed. Essentially Ukraine, with no classical warships, has succeeded in bottling up the Russian fleet in the eastern end of the Black Sea. I hope that we have sought Ukrainian advice, and perhaps asked them to lend us a few experts to train our armed forces.
I agree that our comparative advantage must be in vessels adapted to Arctic conditions. Are our present shipbuilding programs focused on that? Not clear.
Canada builds icebreakers here (Seaspan), and partners with Finland and the US on icebreaker design and construction (Chantier Davie and the Helsinki Shipyard, plus others).
The Harry DeWolf class patrol ships are supposed to be capable of breaking ice over 120cm (called "first year ice"). I heard it described as "slushbreaker", maybe because dedicated ice breakers will in some cases handle Ice over 3m thick.
I think we actually need both conventional patrol ships for costal waters and international commitments, as well as enough arctic capability to assert sovereignty. I don't think the two types of ships tend to overlap well (the DeWolfs cost a boatload of cash to design).
This is not an area I see enough mainstream coverage on, and also one I never thought I'd be this interested in. But you make it interesting, Matt. So thanks and welcome back.
Really great to have you back in the saddle, Matt. Your military history background and connections to the industry and it's players today are so appreciated - helping the rest of us punters make (some) sense of the new-old world order we are now surely in/returned to.
Canadians need a new slogan.
Let's replace the always-ridiculous 'elbows up' with Eyes Open, Resolve Engaged.
I am confused. It is unlikely that the US Coastguard will deploy Multi-Purpose Icebreakers off the coast of Hawaii, so where would they be needed, if not our northern, territorial waters? Of course, once Greenland is annexed the ownership of these waters will be questioned. Bets on who wins?
Get a grip, when it comes to the Canadian Navy, that ship has sailed. We have three coasts, with one submersible submarine. As for Irving's shipyards, Halifax Harbour should be renamed Boondoggle Bay.
Sorry Matt. I worked long enough and close enough in the domain to remain sceptical about the success of any of the current Canadian maritime procurement projects. I hope the RCN gets the ships and people they need. But at least the first project approved by the MPO was new business jets so the PM doesn’t have to slum it on 1980s vintage Challenger jets.
On the idea of an amphibious ship or carrier of some sort. All very good ideas but for one caveat, the Navy does not have its own air force (Fleet Air Arm) or its own soldiers (Marines or Naval Infantry) and therefore it will need buy in from the RCAF and CA. Both of those services are loath to give up assets or control to other services so the Navy has to beg, borrow, or steal to get a semblance of support to make the ship useful.
Which comes to my next point. The CAF has been trying to unfubar itself since 1968 and the unification that was foisted up it by the Pearson Liberals, or more specifically Paul Hellyer. At the time time the RCN lost its airforce, (well they kind of had control of the Maritime Air Group), and by 1971 and the stand up of Air Command there was no real Naval Aviation culture left in the CAF. The RCAF gives lip service to its maritime air community but those pilots and aircrew are the red heading step children of the CAF, tolerated by one service and hated by the other.
Until the RCN (and the CA) have their own aviation branch, our Air Force will continue to shortchange rotary maritime air (see the Cyclone saga) for their fixed wing fighter force and our ability to patrol and project power in national and international waters will continue to suffer.
Great to read your words again, sir. You were missed, and a few things have occurred in your absence
Ain’t that the truth.
Magistral lessons in military history and geopolitics is where Gurney shines. I'm here for it.
I would add to the discussion that the navy chief, VAdm Topshee, mused as to the desirability of an assault ship or two - such vessels are designed to carry troops and their gear to a trouble spot and land and support them, along with other warships, aircraft. This is a good idea in our context in terms of defense of the north. Why? Well our Cdn Rangers may need back up one day and we'd be hard pressed to provide it. Such a vessel with its troops would be just the ticket. At the same time, we need our own ice breaker fleet, which with a Finnish design might be doable fairly quickly. Now that the coast guard has been amalgamated with the navy, the co-ordination of civil ice breaker functions and naval can be accommodated.
Bottom line, if Canada is to step up and meaningfully contribute to NATO and NA defence, then defending our Arctic territories would be an ideal function. We need to declare it, create a strategy, identify requirements and build, operate and establish a presence with teeth. All very doable.
We could also offer to help Denmark in the defence of Greenland and branch out with a similar offer to Iceland. We need to step up and demonstrate that we are a rational member of the G7 and not the coat check guy.
‘We could also offer to help Denmark in the defence of Greenland . . .’
Mildly embarrassing that the German navy has already done so.
"We need to step up and demonstrate that we are a rational member of the G7 and not the coat check guy."
Perfect.
A thing I learned in leadership: the people with balls, and brains, the people we need to follow, project optimism. It's neither naive nor quaint, but true that the future is made.
When the going gets tough, the naysayers, nihilists, get sidelined because they don't like fun, or being happy and most of us do.
Canada has an incredible amount of intellectual horsepower, technical knowledge, management/leadership expertise, and a generational memory of tough times. And we are not as soft as Americans; we are harder stuff.
Having spent time at sea, I can tell you our maritime skills and experience are admired the world over.
More of this please. There are green shoots in lots of areas of Canada (nuclear energy is another) and giving people something to see as a hopeful future in important along with highlighting the (all too many) failures of this country.
A timely subject Matt, and very well described. I have been scribbling on Canadian naval history for some decades, and it’s not as entirely dismal a record as the media might have us believe — although in truth it’s not as great as it could have been, but there have been as many ups as downs. Pardon the shameless self-promotion, but as a long-time devoted subscriber to The Line, I have only slight hesitation in noting that I have just published a book on the history of Canadian warship and maritime aircraft, “Guardians of The North”, that covers those ups and downs from naval, political and economic perspectives, concluding with observations on the presently-envisioned new acquisitions:
https://utpdistribution.com/9781459755550/guardians-of-the-north/
Damn Matt, it's comforting to hear from you again. Welcome back
Well that was a pleasure, reading your writing again. Welcome back to crazy world.
Licensing a design is like licensing a patent. Someone else builds the thing, we collect a modest fee (relative to the construction cost).
A really great announcement would be that Canada has ordered 8 or 10 icebreakers from Seaspan. Real jobs in Canada.
And we could assign a couple to keep Churchill, MB open year round for the LNG plant we could connect to AB & SK natural gas. And we could park a couple at Greenland and jointly with Denmark declare Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea soverign territory. Show'm the Donroe Doctrine don't apply north of the 48th.
An even better outcome would be that another country has ordered 8 or 10 to be built in Canada and delivered to an ally!! We’re a long way away from being globally competitive though.
Great ideas.
Some years ago, Canada decided to build its own warships, rather than buy from countries like South Korea or Japan and adapt to our needs. The rationale at that time was that we wanted to develop our own production capacities. Other countries, such as Australia, took the other route.
I'm a great believer in the learning curve and learning by doing. Canada has spread its naval shipbuilding program over at least three shipyards. That sounds more like a regional development strategy. Developing excellence in naval shipbuilding would have suggested a single supplier. I do understand the political constraints, but still.
I have little knowledge of naval doctrine. However, recent events in the Ukraine-Russia war suggest to me that things have changed. Essentially Ukraine, with no classical warships, has succeeded in bottling up the Russian fleet in the eastern end of the Black Sea. I hope that we have sought Ukrainian advice, and perhaps asked them to lend us a few experts to train our armed forces.
I agree that our comparative advantage must be in vessels adapted to Arctic conditions. Are our present shipbuilding programs focused on that? Not clear.
Canada builds icebreakers here (Seaspan), and partners with Finland and the US on icebreaker design and construction (Chantier Davie and the Helsinki Shipyard, plus others).
The Harry DeWolf class patrol ships are supposed to be capable of breaking ice over 120cm (called "first year ice"). I heard it described as "slushbreaker", maybe because dedicated ice breakers will in some cases handle Ice over 3m thick.
I think we actually need both conventional patrol ships for costal waters and international commitments, as well as enough arctic capability to assert sovereignty. I don't think the two types of ships tend to overlap well (the DeWolfs cost a boatload of cash to design).
This is not an area I see enough mainstream coverage on, and also one I never thought I'd be this interested in. But you make it interesting, Matt. So thanks and welcome back.
Really great to have you back in the saddle, Matt. Your military history background and connections to the industry and it's players today are so appreciated - helping the rest of us punters make (some) sense of the new-old world order we are now surely in/returned to.
Canadians need a new slogan.
Let's replace the always-ridiculous 'elbows up' with Eyes Open, Resolve Engaged.
I am confused. It is unlikely that the US Coastguard will deploy Multi-Purpose Icebreakers off the coast of Hawaii, so where would they be needed, if not our northern, territorial waters? Of course, once Greenland is annexed the ownership of these waters will be questioned. Bets on who wins?
Get a grip, when it comes to the Canadian Navy, that ship has sailed. We have three coasts, with one submersible submarine. As for Irving's shipyards, Halifax Harbour should be renamed Boondoggle Bay.
The US Coast Guard has a huge problem in the Aleutians, from Alaska to...
A map tells the story.
Sorry Matt. I worked long enough and close enough in the domain to remain sceptical about the success of any of the current Canadian maritime procurement projects. I hope the RCN gets the ships and people they need. But at least the first project approved by the MPO was new business jets so the PM doesn’t have to slum it on 1980s vintage Challenger jets.
As we say in football, it’s the hope that kills ya
Hope! A four letter word… but it’s what we have right now.
Glad you’re back. I appreciate your view on these military matters!
On the idea of an amphibious ship or carrier of some sort. All very good ideas but for one caveat, the Navy does not have its own air force (Fleet Air Arm) or its own soldiers (Marines or Naval Infantry) and therefore it will need buy in from the RCAF and CA. Both of those services are loath to give up assets or control to other services so the Navy has to beg, borrow, or steal to get a semblance of support to make the ship useful.
Which comes to my next point. The CAF has been trying to unfubar itself since 1968 and the unification that was foisted up it by the Pearson Liberals, or more specifically Paul Hellyer. At the time time the RCN lost its airforce, (well they kind of had control of the Maritime Air Group), and by 1971 and the stand up of Air Command there was no real Naval Aviation culture left in the CAF. The RCAF gives lip service to its maritime air community but those pilots and aircrew are the red heading step children of the CAF, tolerated by one service and hated by the other.
Until the RCN (and the CA) have their own aviation branch, our Air Force will continue to shortchange rotary maritime air (see the Cyclone saga) for their fixed wing fighter force and our ability to patrol and project power in national and international waters will continue to suffer.
It’s all in The Book ;-))