Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

[Cloud Cover]

F35s can each carry 6 Joint Strike Missiles (2 internal 4 external) and recent photos have show they could instead carry 2 Long Range Anti Ship Missiles (much more powerful warhead and longer range). I expect a P8 would only use LRASM as they don't have stealth to get closer like JSMs require. They carry 4 LRASM.

MQ 9Bs recently carried LRASMs at RIMPAC and were seen carrying JSM in 2023.

This should be a task the airforce is assigned. Also I expect that if that's added to their tasks they may need more aircraft, likely F35s as some will be carrying strike payloads on a mission and others will be used to escort the strike.

Making some assumptions a strike package of 16 F35s with JSM plus 4 P8s could put out 96 JSM and 16 LRASM to oversaturate an enemy naval task groups defenses.

Was the proposed Bombardier maritime patrol aircraft thought to be capable of carrying external stores such as LRASM? Because a Canadian built long range missile carrying bomber is another thing I would not have even theorized a year ago!!!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is quite a change in thought about naval capability for you? A carrier requires several large support ships, air defence destroyers, frigates and ASW screens, and an aircraft type and doctrine we haven’t even thought about since the early 1960’s with the Banshee. Is this a capability in lieu of a larger submarine force?

It is a change of thought on naval capabilities on my part. I've been slowly evolving that thought for a few years now.

I am not suggesting an American style Carrier Battle Group. Most of the other allies we have who operate the smaller carriers, including the UK, rely on one AAW and one or two ASW escort, sometimes supported by a submarine. The CSC has the flexibility of being either the ASW or the AAW ship depending on the missile load, so it doesn't require added capability. I agree we may (probably would) require a pair of support ships with greater dry cargo and weapons (bombs) transfer capability on top of the two PRO class AOR's. The submarines are a separate issue, and in my mind are to be kept for their own capability 's sake, so this is not in lieu of.

The aircraft type for such carriers already exists: the F35-B, and doctrine for its use has been developed and is being further refined as we speak by both the UK and Italy. The UK is further ahead as it has developed the carrier (QE class) specifically as a complement to the f35-B: the ship and aircrafts are basically built and developed to work together to maximize the effect of their marriage and to work in cooperation with the Americans. That would be my preferred way but we can also come up with a Canadian doctrine for ourselves, either as the sole doctrine or as a complementary one to the UK's .

My reasoning revolves around the fact that whether conflict arises against Russia or China, the likely opponents will include on "our" side nations that far outstrip us in terms of population (India against China or the main Western European nations against Russia) and therefore, unlike in WWII, we would not be a major contributor of land forces in conflicts that would be taking place far from our country anyway. So what can contribute the most to (1) our own defense, and (2) the cause of our allies? Aircraft carrier!

A pair of carrier, one on each "side" coasts, creates a credible deterrent to anyone with any inkling of coming at us from the North Pacific or the North Atlantic. Similarly, in case of heightened tension in the Arctic while it is fairly ice free, a carrier group is a credible blocking force. All this, in our own defense, would be from us acting alone. It is even more of a deterrent when done in conjunction with allies.

On the other hand, such carriers(s) would be quick, major and credible contributions that could be made to any international developing situation. Consider, for instance, that Australia has invested in two Assault Landing Ships. Should Canada, in a conflict involving Australia, provide a carrier that would extend the air umbrella for those two landing ships to operate further from the shores where the RAAF can provide it, it would be a major contribution to what response can be made to a situation in the Indo-Pacific region. Similarly, joint work with the Indian Navy carriers would be great boost to the security of that area in situations where the Americans may or may not want to be seen to intervene. One more carrier group in the North Atlantic in case of conflict with Russia would be a very significant contribution to European security. It would almost be a 25% greater availability of carrier than what is provided by the UK and the US.

Etc. Etc.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It is a change of thought on naval capabilities on my part. I've been slowly evolving that thought for a few years now.

I am not suggesting an American style Carrier Battle Group. Most of the other allies we have who operate the smaller carriers, including the UK, rely on one AAW and one or two ASW escort, sometimes supported by a submarine. The CSC has the flexibility of being either the ASW or the AAW ship depending on the missile load, so it doesn't require added capability. I agree we may (probably would) require a pair of support ships with greater dry cargo and weapons (bombs) transfer capability on top of the two PRO class AOR's. The submarines are a separate issue, and in my mind are to be kept for their own capability 's sake, so this is not in lieu of.

The aircraft type for such carriers already exists: the F35-B, and doctrine for its use has been developed and is being further refined as we speak by both the UK and Italy. The UK is further ahead as it has developed the carrier (QE class) specifically as a complement to the f35-B: the ship and aircrafts are basically built and developed to work together to maximize the effect of their marriage and to work in cooperation with the Americans. That would be my preferred way but we can also come up with a Canadian doctrine for ourselves, either as the sole doctrine or as a complementary one to the UK's .

My reasoning revolves around the fact that whether conflict arises against Russia or China, the likely opponents will include on "our" side nations that far outstrip us in terms of population (India against China or the main Western European nations against Russia) and therefore, unlike in WWII, we would not be a major contributor of land forces in conflicts that would be taking place far from our country anyway. So what can contribute the most to (1) our own defense, and (2) the cause of our allies? Aircraft carrier!

A pair of carrier, one on each "side" coasts, creates a credible deterrent to anyone with any inkling of coming at us from the North Pacific or the North Atlantic. Similarly, in case of heightened tension in the Arctic while it is fairly ice free, a carrier group is a credible blocking force. All this, in our own defense, would be from us acting alone. It is even more of a deterrent when done in conjunction with allies.

On the other hand, such carriers(s) would be quick, major and credible contributions that could be made to any international developing situation. Consider, for instance, that Australia has invested in two Assault Landing Ships. Should Canada, in a conflict involving Australia, provide a carrier that would extend the air umbrella for those two landing ships to operate further from the shores where the RAAF can provide it, it would be a major contribution to what response can be made to a situation in the Indo-Pacific region. Similarly, joint work with the Indian Navy carriers would be great boost to the security of that area in situations where the Americans may or may not want to be seen to intervene. One more carrier group in the North Atlantic in case of conflict with Russia would be a very significant contribution to European security. It would almost be a 25% greater availability of carrier than what is provided by the UK and the US.

Etc. Etc.

If this was to occur, would 12 subs be enough for us? I’d assume that each carrier would have 1 (or more?) dedicated sub assigned to it each time it left port. If that’s true, would 12 Subs be enough? Looking at say the WC, one sub would be patrolling our western arctic approaches, one on the WC or patrolling elsewhere and one with the carrier. Would we not need more subs?

 

[dimsum]

Was the proposed Bombardier maritime patrol aircraft thought to be capable of carrying external stores such as LRASM? Because a Canadian built long range missile carrying bomber is another thing I would not have even theorized a year ago!!!

The Bombardier proposal was a CGI drawing, so it could have carried an ICBM.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The Bombardier proposal was a CGI drawing, so it could have carried an ICBM.

Perfect!!

 

[Halifax Tar]

In the current geopolitical context, I've been coming slowly to the conclusion that we need (need: not would be nice!) one, perhaps even two aircraft carrier(s). Not Supercarriers like the US, but something like the Italian Navy's Cavour, or even the UK's QUEEN ELIZABETH class. Something that would let us move around 25 to 30 F35-B's and some helicopters where our needs require, but would be reasonable on manpower with around 650 to 750 sailors and about 400 to 500 persons air group.

I made a back of the envelope calculation on this, with a 12 to 14 years time line from inception of the project to flight certification of the first such ship and the second one - if selected - coming four years later. My calculations show that (if bought offshore, i.e. in the UK, Spain or Italy) including the build up of naval and air personnel, the first one would need an increase of annual defense budget of 8b$ Canadian on a constant dollars basis, and the second one an extra 6b$ Canadian, same basis. This means basically a 50% increase in the defense budget, which still doesn't get us to the 2% of GDP figure.

Starting something like that now would (1) hopefully attract lots of young Canadian to the Navy and the Air Force and (2) put the entry into operational service of the first such ship smack in the middle of delivery of the CSC's and somewhere near the end of the entry into service of the submarines (should this actually occur on the currently advertised timeline).

I love it and all the add on hulls that come with it.

My one point is I think we need to un-fubar the Naval Aviation house first and give it back to the RCN proper. I see this idea being gong show of competing commands and little empires otherwise.

 

[MacNav63]

I love it and all the add on hulls that come with it.

My one point is I think we need to un-fubar the Naval Aviation house first and give it back to the RCN proper. I see this idea being gong show of competing commands and little empires otherwise.

Which the Australians have done with the RAAF shifting maritime air (rotary) back to the RAN and tactical to the Australian Army several years ago.

With regard to a carrier type, assuming we wouldn't go down the path of the QE class given the size/cost, is there an existing type out their that would fit the bill? The Cavour?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For the Juan Carlos I you are looking at base crew of 261, with air wing adding 172. They offer amphioxus transport and the abilty to fly off F35's. Canada would have to stand up a new maritime helicopter squadron, but we could arrange it that our allies provide the F35's and support personal. 4 ships of the class have been built with another planned.

My guess is we would have to forgo 2 AOP's and 2 CSC to be able afford/crew/dock these ships.

 

[Kirkhill]

What? Canada as another Afghanistan? What are you talking about? Severing Europe from Asia? Putting aside that there are many other better ways to get between Europe and Asia than going through the Canadian arctic, who do you think asked us to be in Latvia? The Transatlantic Bond is one of the key NATO principles. NATO is worried about Russia being able to hamper communications from North America to Europe in the North Atlantic by way of the high arctic, but that is not based on the possession of given islands in the Canadian arctic archipelago. Stationing Canadian troops in the arctic is not going to prevent Backfires from trying to interdict forces moving across the Atlantic.

A joint Chinese-Russian seizure of an island in the Canadian high arctic is an interesting play. How do they get there and then what do they do once they are there? What size force would they place there?

All that being said, our first priority is Canada, then North America and then the world. Regarding the world, NATO has primacy. Our allocation of resources is guided by credible threats. That is why we have troops in Latvia as part of a deterrence mission. This does not mean that we ignore Canada - indeed we do not.

Regarding the article you posted, Canada can certainly be overstretched. We should be careful before making each commitment - which we are. This doesn't mean we bring everything home to look after the patrol base.

I won't engage in line-by-line, but I will try to address the Divisional question.

Regarding the Division level, what do you mean by "coordinate a Division within our own resources?" Do you mean the command and control of a fighting division on operations, or the coordination of day-to-day activities at home stations? Why do you ask?

I always want to take care when responding to you.

I don't think we will ever see the international situation, or for that matter the national defence situation, in the same terms.

I am strongly convinced that a primary reason for the lack of support for national defence in Canada is the ongoing tendency to argue that Canada lives in a fireproof house and has no need to be concerned.

At the same time Canadians get the message that we need to go looking for wars overseas. While it may be the right thing to do, it does tend to put our fireproof house at risk.

....

D-Day on the St-Lawrence, or even Resolute, has never been a possibility. Conventional warfighting is not a major likelihood in Canada.

Having said that nobody has declared war in any country in a very long time. Wars mix the state military with private industry, politics and criminals. Anybody can buy their way into a remote site in Canada and then start flying in security teams and assets. Add some disgruntled natives and a few bikers and pretty soon, IMO, the RCMP would be presented with a tactical problem outside of their skills and scope.

....

I think that we have a perfectly adequate base from which to build an appropriate Army Response Force. The Brigade.

Following on from 11th Abn and some of the US light brigades and divisions, and based on our recent Cold War history I propose 3 Infantry Brigades, 1 Armoured Brigade and 1 Combat Support Brigade.

The Infantry Brigades would be based on the three infantry regiments with 2 Rifle Battalions and 1 New Model Battalion (ISR/EW/UAS/CUAS/Cyber...) They would follow the basic design construct of the old Special Service Force.

The Cavalry Brigade would be based on the RCD, the LdSH and 12 RBC and Armoured Engineers- using the Swedish Pansar Combined Arms model.

The Combat Support Brigade based on 1 and 2 RCHA, 5 RALC and 4 GS Regiment.

.....

I would propose two active Div HQs, The distribution of Brigades within the Divs is not important. What is important is that each Division HQ is switched on an deployable and can absorb additional elements from Canadian and Allied forces. Adhocery as the rule.

Likewise for the Brigades - cross attachments to other Brigade HQs as the norm, and regular training with different modes of transport.

...

Why 2 divisions? Personal preference, a sense that the rest of the world organizes along divisional lines and a notion that Canada should be able to manage at least that level of commitment to sustain any degree of self-worth.

 

[Czech_pivo]

For the Juan Carlos I you are looking at base crew of 261, with air wing adding 172. They offer amphioxus transport and the abilty to fly off F35's. Canada would have to stand up a new maritime helicopter squadron, but we could arrange it that our allies provide the F35's and support personal. 4 ships of the class have been built with another planned.

My guess is we would have to forgo 2 AOP's and 2 CSC to be able afford/crew/dock these ships.

These comments about forgoing ships is premature when we are talking 12-15yrs into the future. I'd like to think there is enough IQ points in the RCN to solve for a crewing issue 12yr out.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

These comments about forgoing ships is premature when we are talking 12-15yrs into the future. I'd like to think there is enough IQ points in the RCN to solve for a crewing issue 12yr out.

The crewing issue did not happen overnight, some sacred cows might need to be taken out back and shot. Also budgetwise, with subs and F35's and new equipment for the army, likley something would have to give.

 

[PrairieFella]

The crewing issue did not happen overnight, some sacred cows might need to be taken out back and shot. Also budgetwise, with subs and F35's and new equipment for the army, likley something would have to give.

We all know that give will be the Army haha.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The crewing issue did not happen overnight, some sacred cows might need to be taken out back and shot. Also budgetwise, with subs and F35's and new equipment for the army, likley something would have to give.

Let's see - cut the public service - scrap the National Dental plan - revamp the Carbon Tax - Increase the HST by 1% and funnel that revenue directly to national defense - I just picked these out of the sky in under 30 seconds.

 

[DBNSG]

Let's see - cut the public service - scrap the National Dental plan - revamp the Carbon Tax - Increase the HST by 1% and funnel that revenue directly to national defense - I just picked these out of the sky in under 30 seconds.

Scrap all the Liberal slush funds like the 1 Billion Green fund that is suspected -so far- to be missing at least 300 Mill.

 

[McG]

The crewing issue did not happen overnight, some sacred cows might need to be taken out back and shot. Also budgetwise, with subs and F35's and new equipment for the army, likley something would have to give.

Canada has committed to spend 2% of GDP on defence and 20% of that on equipment. That is 0.4% of GDP on equipment. Last year, we did not even spend 0.2% on equipment. If we meet our spending commitments to NATO, there is room on the table for all these things.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canada has committed to spend 2% of GDP on defence and 20% of that on equipment. That is 0.4% of GDP on equipment. Last year, we did not even spend 0.2% on equipment. If we meet our spending commitments to NATO, there is room on the table for all these things.

I wish for that, but I suspect the belt will be tightened once a new government gets in and DND is a easy target.

 

[YZT580]

The crewing issue did not happen overnight, some sacred cows might need to be taken out back and shot. Also budgetwise, with subs and F35's and new equipment for the army, likley something would have to give.

if we stop subsidizing battery factories we will have lots of cash

 

[GR66]

It is a change of thought on naval capabilities on my part. I've been slowly evolving that thought for a few years now.

I am not suggesting an American style Carrier Battle Group. Most of the other allies we have who operate the smaller carriers, including the UK, rely on one AAW and one or two ASW escort, sometimes supported by a submarine. The CSC has the flexibility of being either the ASW or the AAW ship depending on the missile load, so it doesn't require added capability. I agree we may (probably would) require a pair of support ships with greater dry cargo and weapons (bombs) transfer capability on top of the two PRO class AOR's. The submarines are a separate issue, and in my mind are to be kept for their own capability 's sake, so this is not in lieu of.

The aircraft type for such carriers already exists: the F35-B, and doctrine for its use has been developed and is being further refined as we speak by both the UK and Italy. The UK is further ahead as it has developed the carrier (QE class) specifically as a complement to the f35-B: the ship and aircrafts are basically built and developed to work together to maximize the effect of their marriage and to work in cooperation with the Americans. That would be my preferred way but we can also come up with a Canadian doctrine for ourselves, either as the sole doctrine or as a complementary one to the UK's .

Let me start by saying I'd love to see Canada with a couple of aircraft carriers. Something like the Cavour would provide a great deal of flexibility for the CAF...a mobile airfield for F-35's, with Cyclones it could be flagship for an ASW task force, it could be used to launch amphibious or air mobile operations, be a platfom to support HADR operations, etc.

That being said, I'm not 100% convinced they would provide better "bang for the buck" over other options.

My reasoning revolves around the fact that whether conflict arises against Russia or China, the likely opponents will include on "our" side nations that far outstrip us in terms of population (India against China or the main Western European nations against Russia) and therefore, unlike in WWII, we would not be a major contributor of land forces in conflicts that would be taking place far from our country anyway. So what can contribute the most to (1) our own defense, and (2) the cause of our allies? Aircraft carrier!

Agree in general that naval and air assets are better suited than land forces for our own national and continental defence. Also agree that unlike WWII (where most European nations were either occupied or enemies) basically ALL of Europe is on our side and our military contribution on the ground is not as militarily vital as it was then. However, our political contribution (in the form of ground forces fighting alongside our allies) is just as vital for both deterrence of Russia and unity of the NATO alliance if deterrence fails.

A pair of carrier, one on each "side" coasts, creates a credible deterrent to anyone with any inkling of coming at us from the North Pacific or the North Atlantic. Similarly, in case of heightened tension in the Arctic while it is fairly ice free, a carrier group is a credible blocking force. All this, in our own defense, would be from us acting alone. It is even more of a deterrent when done in conjunction with allies.

I think the likelihood of any Russian or Chinese surface fleet approaching either our Atlantic or Pacific coasts is exceedingly small. I doubt the Russian Navy maintains a blue water offensive capability and would much more likely be used close to home to defend their SSBN's rather than trying to break out into the Atlantic where they lose any land-based AD or fighter cover.

Similarly, the PLA(N), while large and developing blue water capabilities is highly unlikely to risk exposing itself to US Carrier Groups by pushing beyond the cover of their land-based fires.

As for the Arctic, moving a carrier into the Bering Sea/Straight, Beaufort Sea, Arctic Ocean or Barents Sea areas would put it in range of Russian land-based aircraft making it a pretty juicy target. For the cost of the carrier and 16 x F-35B's how many additional F-35A's could you get and disperse them across various Arctic airfields where they could deter as easily as carrier-based fighters but be much safer than grouped together on a single, floating platform?

On the other hand, such carriers(s) would be quick, major and credible contributions that could be made to any international developing situation. Consider, for instance, that Australia has invested in two Assault Landing Ships. Should Canada, in a conflict involving Australia, provide a carrier that would extend the air umbrella for those two landing ships to operate further from the shores where the RAAF can provide it, it would be a major contribution to what response can be made to a situation in the Indo-Pacific region.

I see Australia's Assault Landing Ships as being used to move troops to support/reinforce allied nations rather than conducting assault landings on enemy-held territory. If the destination nations are friendly then you could simply deploy aircraft there directly rather than deploying them on a carrier.

Similarly, joint work with the Indian Navy carriers would be great boost to the security of that area in situations where the Americans may or may not want to be seen to intervene. One more carrier group in the North Atlantic in case of conflict with Russia would be a very significant contribution to European security. It would almost be a 25% greater availability of carrier than what is provided by the UK and the US.

Etc. Etc.

In my opinion the greatest maritime threat to Canada and our Allies is submarines. No enemy surface fleet is likely to risk approaching anywhere near our shores (and as I mentioned above I highly doubt the willingness/capability of the Chinese or Russians to deploy their surface fleets beyond the range of their land-based assets). However, I'm almost certain (just like WWI and WWII) that our enemies will deploy their submarines in an attempt to disrupt the flow of American troops and materiel to a conflict in Europe/South Asia. They will also very likely try to use their submarines to take out American aircraft carriers due to their massive ability to project power.

I think the most welcome course of action that Canada could take would be to seriously increase our ASW capability. The CSC's, P-8's and promised submarines are a good start. ASW capable replacements for the Kingston-Class would be a major help as would a large network of uncrewed sensor systems.

Two carriers gobble up a significant portion of our remaining surface fleet to support and protect them which means less ASW assets to protect our maritime domain and to protect our allies. Better to spend that money on more ASW assets that can be more widely deployed and provide greater overall defence in my opinion.

 

[Cloud Cover]

We all know that give will be the Army haha.

Leaving the army with a smaller force of 40 and 50 year old troops with equipment 20-30 years out of date.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

GR66, While I generally agree with most what you say, I disagree that the greatest maritime threat is submarines. There is a significant air threat also. Russia still retains important long range strategic aircrafts specifically designed to attack convoys and major surface unit in the mid-Atlantic. I believe that China has some such capability also. Moreover, today's submarine threat is not unidimensional anymore as they carry an important missile load that constitutes an air threat.

A carrier in the Cavour range of size and style could be a major ASW asset that also provide air cover over an ASW force.

Just a stupid question here for our Air Force brethren: How hard would it be to turn V-22 Ospreys into long range ASW "helicopter"? Run like a plane from place to place, hover like a chopper to lower transducer? Just a weird idea of mine - don't feel like you must answer.