• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

From Nov29/2004 Daily News Article

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Monday, November 29, 2004
Study: build new warships now    
By John Ward â “ The Canadian Press

OTTAWA â “ The government needs to start placing orders for new warships and plan updates on the existing vessels if it wants to maintain naval capabilities beyond the next decade or so, says a new study.
The document, to be released today by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, also says it's time to resurrect Canada's shipbuilding capability.

Peter Haydon, a retired naval officer and longtime naval analyst, argues in the paper that without immediate action, the navy faces serious rust-out problems, because lead times for building warships are so long.

The navy, he says, is needed as a vital, flexible tool in a troubled and uncertain world.

â Å“Over the years, there has been a political preference for using naval forces in making the initial response to crises,â ? he said. For Canada, that was true in the Korean War, the first Gulf War and the war on terror, when warships were the first to go.

â Å“Versatile naval forces, as opposed to specialized forces, will continue to be a sound investment in national security, no matter what happens in the future ...

â Å“But Canadian politicians do not seem to be convinced of this.â ?

Haydon argues the government should immediately order replacements for the existing Tribal-class destroyers â ” which are used as task force leaders â ” and new support ships and start a modernization program to bridge the gap until the new ships are ready.

The fleet now consists of a dozen patrol frigates, launched between 1992 and 1996, four Tribal-class destroyers dating back to the early 1970s, a pair of supply ships launched in the late 1960s, four used British subs which are a decade old and 12 small coastal defence ships.

One of the Tribals is essentially laid up out of service now, and a second is going into dry dock for a refit. All are soon to reach the end of their service life.

Haydon says they need to be replaced because they provide the command and control for small squadrons, as well as anti-aircraft capability.

He says four of the frigates should be converted as short-term replacements until new command-and-control ships can be built. And to bridge the gap until new support ships hit the water, he suggests leasing two or three commercial tankers.

â Å“The status quo needs to be extended to 2015 and beyond, pending the arrival of the new destroyers and fleet support ships by modernizing the remaining frigates, submarines and patrol vessels.â ?

And down the road, there should be orders for frigate replacements, new subs and new maritime patrol planes.

The Liberal government promised new support ships in the last election campaign, but nothing has been ordered, nor has there been any announcement of what sort of support ships are planned.

One of the problems with naval planning, Haydon says, is the length of time required to deliver new ships. The naval planning horizon stretches beyond the five-year time frame that occupies most politicians.

http://www.hfxnews.ca/news.aspx?storyID=25339

 
I'm not sure if this stuff is hitting the news more or if I was just too preoccupied to notice.  It just goes to show that equipment acquisitions is an on going endeavour, not something you can do then take a decade to sit back and go "look at all the equipment we got". We're all feeling the crunch, I just hope we start seeing it get better before we hit the breaking point.

Cheers
 
The Navy is there already, they will not get new destroyers until we replace the frigates i think i can put money on that and win.
 
"they will not get new destroyers until we replace the frigates"

Unless you know something I don't, I believe you've got that backwards.  I can't see convincing the public that we need to be replacing the CPF's when some of them are not even 10 years old, yet.  Whereas our Destroyers needed to be replaced, yesterday.  They basically proved that the CPF's aren't even remotely practical as a C & C vessel, when they tried it with the HMCS Montreal.  I'd suggest that we ask a crewmember from that trial, but they were so tightly packed, I don't think they were ever capable of leaving the ship. 

Chimo
 
Heatwave said:
I'd suggest that we ask a crewmember from that trial, but they were so tightly packed, I don't think they were ever capable of leaving the ship.  

Not to mention the class of ship is not fully equipped for proper command and control duties, and apparently there is no room for such equipment without serious "renovations", which would appear to be feasable only if a few CPF hulls were designated as "trading spaces" candidates for C&C.  And then, the Navy would lose the general purpose capabilities of a few frigates without replacements.   
 
I was on HMCS OTTAWA when we had the Staff onboard in the Gulf in 2002 before HMCS ALGONQUIN showed up.  It was not what I would call an optimum situation.  It was a very crowded ship...

We were very glad when ALG arrived...
 
We all know that acquisitions within any govt agency can take a while. The bigger the acquisition, the longer it takes.

Unlike procuring a helicopter that is already available to the civilian and military and has a factory up and running to build them, when we look at Naval purchases, it can take quite some time. This is usually due to the fact that the ship is engineered from the keel up by a ship yard that knows how to build ships, but has never built a ship like the one the Navy wants.

I believe that the CPF project actually started in the late 70's seeing the first keel laid down in March of 1987. The last ship that was produced was launched in 1995. I remember someone saying that the CPF's would probably last for at least 20 years. That being said, the first ship should be replaced in 2007 and the last in 2015. Realistically, we will probably have the CPF's into the 2020's.

It's good to see that a JSS is on the books, forward though is better than none at all.
 
Back
Top