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.
Actually, for the past 10-20 years we haven't been the coat check guy. We've been the guy that insists on showing up at all the restaurant dinner gatherings and always finds himself needing to go to the washroom when the dinner bill comes around for settlement.
Ian, I absolutely mean no offense when I say, dream on.
What I mean is that the things you suggest are quite a) commendable; b) in the realm of realistic necessity; but c) unlike Canada's history over the last number of decades for being foresighted; and d) much more ambitious (but, desirable, I agree) than I can see Canada ever being.
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.
Fuck trump; fuck the 51st state idea; the vast majority of us hate the idea of being an amerikkan.
(Why would anyone from a 1st world country want to join that 2nd world theocracy? 2nd world junta? To die early and broke thanks to non-health care? To struggle with the most complicated tax return in the world? To buy into the worst debt/deficit situation in the western world? To give up 1/3 of your tax money to fuel a runaway military industrial complex? The list is too easy...)
I'm happily surprised by the number of people who state they're willing to die with a rifle in their hands.
There are many Canadians under 35 who are leaving. Canada is a country that just isn't that great for young people. At least the US has a decent economy if nothing else.
also, looking at all the econ indicators, I'm wondering what measures you think are better. The US has an incredible debt crisis, far beyond our ratios (or almost any first world country) and their I&CC limit their choices. Their stock market and dollar are falling and, so much worse, over time customers are changing supply chains and customers quickly.
Sad baby is "transforming" his US economy in the same way he "transformed" the thriving R.E co his daddy made for him, lol.
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:
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.
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.
But no mention of the 84 billion dollar price tag (so far) for a the River class. At what point does Canada's defence ministry stop shopping at Louis Vuitton for equipment that has to be all things to all people delivered sometime in the latter half of the century and start shopping at Costco for the weekly deals? The dinner bell has already rung. And we've got nothing to serve.
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).
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.
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.
There is just one major obvious item MG may have hinted at indirecly ..... and that I will list explicitly ..... it is the shysterizing wokey "Liberals" that are promising the Canadian Navy buildup. The have by now a lengthy record destroying and effing up anything they touch.
And with the carpetbagger net-zero grifter PM Markie Carnie no doubt insisting that these new ships must be carbon neutral and built from climate-competitive green steel, and that most components be sourced through his Brookfield holdings, I will keenly observe while breathing as usual.
And while the “Elbow’s Up” crowd may look askance at the prevalence of the word “American” in that sentence, this is damned interesting — not only are we continuing to show interest in the Arctic, but we’re also trying to sustain real shipbuilding in this country. The situation in the White House is so bizarre these days that it’s hard to take any announcement like this to the bank, but it was notable. If nothing else, it would be nice to see more efforts like this — whether the plans work will, alas, largely be out of our hands.
END QUOTE
Actually, this is the first time in the past year that I've had something to feel mildly optimistic about.
The fact that Seaspan was able to sign an agreement with (US DOD?) suggests that institutional actors in the United States are exerting their own "sovereignty" vis-a-vis Trump. And that this may be a signal that some of our old friends are keen to send us "happy signals".
Thank you for this, and your overall analysis. Well done.
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.
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.
Actually, for the past 10-20 years we haven't been the coat check guy. We've been the guy that insists on showing up at all the restaurant dinner gatherings and always finds himself needing to go to the washroom when the dinner bill comes around for settlement.
Ian, I absolutely mean no offense when I say, dream on.
What I mean is that the things you suggest are quite a) commendable; b) in the realm of realistic necessity; but c) unlike Canada's history over the last number of decades for being foresighted; and d) much more ambitious (but, desirable, I agree) than I can see Canada ever being.
But, then I am a cynic and a pessimist.
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.
There is such a thing as foolish optimism.
The optimism needs to be grounded in reality and the majority of the elbows up crowd just don't live in the world everyone else lives in.
Elbows up wasn't optimism, lol.
Fuck trump; fuck the 51st state idea; the vast majority of us hate the idea of being an amerikkan.
(Why would anyone from a 1st world country want to join that 2nd world theocracy? 2nd world junta? To die early and broke thanks to non-health care? To struggle with the most complicated tax return in the world? To buy into the worst debt/deficit situation in the western world? To give up 1/3 of your tax money to fuel a runaway military industrial complex? The list is too easy...)
I'm happily surprised by the number of people who state they're willing to die with a rifle in their hands.
There are many Canadians under 35 who are leaving. Canada is a country that just isn't that great for young people. At least the US has a decent economy if nothing else.
also, looking at all the econ indicators, I'm wondering what measures you think are better. The US has an incredible debt crisis, far beyond our ratios (or almost any first world country) and their I&CC limit their choices. Their stock market and dollar are falling and, so much worse, over time customers are changing supply chains and customers quickly.
Sad baby is "transforming" his US economy in the same way he "transformed" the thriving R.E co his daddy made for him, lol.
The net migration from the US is positive with quite a margin, especially among the sciences. Not sure what you mean.
You'll have to share that source because I can't find it and no one has reported that as fact.
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/
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.
Damn Matt, it's comforting to hear from you again. Welcome back
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.
George, the past number of decades have proven that almost all defense purchases ARE regional development programs.
But no mention of the 84 billion dollar price tag (so far) for a the River class. At what point does Canada's defence ministry stop shopping at Louis Vuitton for equipment that has to be all things to all people delivered sometime in the latter half of the century and start shopping at Costco for the weekly deals? The dinner bell has already rung. And we've got nothing to serve.
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).
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.
As we say in football, it’s the hope that kills ya
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.
Glad to read this.
There is just one major obvious item MG may have hinted at indirecly ..... and that I will list explicitly ..... it is the shysterizing wokey "Liberals" that are promising the Canadian Navy buildup. The have by now a lengthy record destroying and effing up anything they touch.
And with the carpetbagger net-zero grifter PM Markie Carnie no doubt insisting that these new ships must be carbon neutral and built from climate-competitive green steel, and that most components be sourced through his Brookfield holdings, I will keenly observe while breathing as usual.
QUOTE
And while the “Elbow’s Up” crowd may look askance at the prevalence of the word “American” in that sentence, this is damned interesting — not only are we continuing to show interest in the Arctic, but we’re also trying to sustain real shipbuilding in this country. The situation in the White House is so bizarre these days that it’s hard to take any announcement like this to the bank, but it was notable. If nothing else, it would be nice to see more efforts like this — whether the plans work will, alas, largely be out of our hands.
END QUOTE
Actually, this is the first time in the past year that I've had something to feel mildly optimistic about.
The fact that Seaspan was able to sign an agreement with (US DOD?) suggests that institutional actors in the United States are exerting their own "sovereignty" vis-a-vis Trump. And that this may be a signal that some of our old friends are keen to send us "happy signals".
Thank you for this, and your overall analysis. Well done.
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.
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!
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.