HoratioNelson

The Canadian Navy has always been somewhat underfunded and ignored by both the politicians in Ottawa and the general populace, because of the more prominent Canadian Army and Airforce. Before I launch into my plan for reinvigorating the Navy and make it a respected naval force, let me just say that I am NOT a professional, I don't know all the statistics about ships and weapons these days, nor am I an economist, I can't tell how many men it would take for these ships or what they would cost, nor am I a politician, I don't know about the need for these ships. This is just my personal opinion as a Naval enthusiast and as a future member of the Canadian Forces of what it would take to make the Canadian Navy a respectable fighting force. Also, there will an extra C in the hull classification codes, these stand for 'Canadian'. Ahem:

Firstly and foremost, there would have to be massive recruiting drives, to bring up our manpower to crew new ships. Training camps would have the be constructed all over the Eastern and Western coastlines to train new officers and crewmen. We'd have to build more of our existing destroyer and frigate classes to escort the new capital ships that would be planned and built. I estimate that four new ship classes would have to be built to reinvigorate our navy. These would be:

Blackfoot class Aircraft Carrier (CCV-6)
Length: 304 metres
Draught: 10.6 metres
Displacement: 60,000 tons
Naming Convention: Native tribes (i.e: HMCS Blackfoot, HMCS Huron)
Ships in Class: 2-3, maybe more in the future
Crew: 4,000+ officers and men
Propulsion: Electric engine if possible, eight or nine steam boilers just in case
Sustainable Speed: 35 knots
Aircraft Complement: 60-80 combat aircraft
Additional Armaments: RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missles, 2 x RIM-116 RAM, 4 x Phalanx CIWS

Arthur Currie class Battleship (CBB-1)
Length: 274 metres
Draught: 17.9 metres
Displacement: 45,000-50,000 tons
Naming Convention: Canadian military leaders (i.e: HMCS Isaac Brock, HMCS Arthur Currie)
Ships in Class: 4-5
Crew: 1,700 officers and men
Propulsion: Again electric engines if posible, steam boilers just in case
Sustainable Speed: 33 knots
Fire Control System: Mk.7 AEGIS ASMS along with a computer system purpose-made for the guns
Armament: 9 x 406mm guns in 3x3 turrets in the 2-A-1 configuration, 14 x 127mm guns in 7x2 turrets along the superstructure, 35 x Tomahawk cruiser missles and 18 x Harpoon anti-ship missles, all in VLS launchers, and 6 x Phalanx CIWS

Vancouver class Guided Missile Cruiser (CCG-1)
Length: 170 metres
Draught: 12 metres
Displacement: 12,000 tons
Naming Convention: Canadian cities (i.e: HMCS Ottawa, HMCS Montreal)
Crew: 700 officers and men
Ships in Class: 6-8
Propulsion: Like the others, electric if possible
Sustainable Speed: 30 knots
Fire Control System: Mk.7 AEGIS ASMS
Armament: 8 x Harpoon AShMs, 22 x of Tomahawk cruise missles, 35 x Shipwreck AShms, 15 x SM-2 surface-to-air missiles, 4 x Phalanx CIWS, 4 x 127mm all purpose guns in 4x1 turrets

Robert Borden class Destroyer (CDD-66)
Length: 119 metres
Draught: 14 metres
Displacement: 5,400 tons
Naming Convention: Canadian prime ministers (i.e: HMCS Mackenzie King, HMCS John A. Macdonald
Ships in Class: 10-12
Crew: 300 officers and men
Propulsion: Electric if possible
Sustainable Speed: 29+ knots
Fire Control System: Mk.7 AEGIS ASMS, and another purpose-made computer system for guns
Armament: 32 x Standard SAMs, 4 x 76mm guns in 4x1 turrets, 2 x Phalanx CIWS, 4 x Harpoon AShMs.

All the cruise missiles on these ships would be in VLS launchers. All the hulls of the new ships would be in the tumblehome design to minimise radar crossection. Prairie-Masker noise reduction systems on both the main hull and propellors of these ships would be used to help mask the ship from sound indentification. Each gun-armed ship would carry both AP and HE ordnance to suit the situation. Permanent naval squadrons would be established, each consisting of one CVBG centered around a carrier, a battleship and numerous escorts.

Well, that's my idea for reempowering the Canadian Navy. Thoughts? Comments?

Officer of Engineers

Hate to tell you this but the Boat People has been the 1st to the money trough for over 20 years and the Army has been dead last. Just look at the Capital purchases from the HALIFAX Class to the VICTORIA Class and compare just how many new planes, tanks, and trucks we've bought.

In any case, your idea is not practical. For all intents and purposes, we have the Navy we need. We don't have the money to fund and crew a CVBG. Thus, we would have to make sure that an American CVBG can do its job which essentially means we are to escourt and protect American CVs anyway we can upto and including being the target instead of them.

__________________
Chimo

HoratioNelson

Like I said, i'm not a politician or an economist. This is just my opinion of what would make the Canadian Navy a fully independent fighting force, not just another supporting element for the US Navy.

Officer of Engineers

Duplication of effort and not very many Navies can stand up to a Canadian Naval Task Group, including the Chinese.

HoratioNelson

This proposed reinvigorating is primarily my personal opinion of what it would take for the Canadian Navy to be capable of independent operations, without help from either NATO or the States. In order for a country's independent naval operations to actually be a force to be reckoned with, the country requires Carriers to project air power over the seas. If you'll look at most of the leading modern navies (USN, RN) then you'll see that the projection of air power is one of the primary missions. This is why I decided Canada needed it's own carriers to be the central element of it's CVBGs. Then I looked at what I consider the second most important aspect of a modern navy, NSFS and surface combat, to provide support for the troops on the ground and to dominate the seas, this is why I decided Canada needed it's own battleships and guided missile cruisers. Finally, a modernised destroyer to escort these ships and provide a defense screen against subs and similar threats would be required.

Officer of Engineers

There are some countries on the planet who MUST rely on Alliances for defence. Canada is one of them. There is no shame in admitting that. The question is do we do our share. History has shown that we have done more than our share. The Canadian Forces is the 2nd most deployed force in NATO, following the Brits.

While we may not have our own carriers, we have at times commanded Naval Groups which included American and British carriers. That's how good our people are. The British and Americans don't mind a Canadian being in charge of their toys.

By the same token, command of a Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group is a very sought after post in our Officer Exchange Programs with both the Brits and the Americans. During my time, I had a USMC Colonel in command of the 1st Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group.

The 2nd-In-Command of NORAD is a Canadian who is part of the Go-No-Go chain in the American nuclear arsenal.

So, while you may lust over the extra "C" in the CCV, our participation in NATO, NORAD, and ABCA more than compensate the lack of a Canadian carrier.

Wraith601

The only one of those ship designs that actually makes sence for Canada is the destroyer, and even then Canada would be better suited by acquiring some Burkes from the US. The Burke can fulfill all the likely tasks required of the Canadian Navy (or whatever the official name is) with the added bonus of logistical and training commonality with Canada's biggest partner, the US.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Parihaka

Why? If air power were required, America has more than enough for both. What scenarious do you envisage whereby Canada is at war without either America or NATO? And who with?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

-{SpoonmaN}-

Man, this is the sort of Navy I can see a major nation operating after they've been on a war footing for a decade. The 4 BBGs are something not even the USN could afford in peacetime.
The combined personnel needed to keep a fleet like that in operation is far in excess of the entire CF, and would stretch the British Armed Forces to the limit. Basically, it's possible that a nation like Russia, France, Britain, maybe Japan could put together something like that (minus the BBGs) after a period of years on a war footing, but otherwise nobody else has the industry, the know-how, the manpower or the money except the United States. Maybe in a decade and a half China could join that list, and then India in another decade after that, but that's it.
Simply, it's way too big. Canada needs a Navy that can provide support to the big dogs in NATO (plus Japan), escort Canadian ships on expeditionary operations and that's about it.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Blademaster

Only if the Canadian Naval Task Group stays out of the brown water and out of air reach of that country's air force's maritime assets. The Canadian Naval task Group does not have the aerial coverage that an American CVBG does. In short, the Canadians have to draw out its enemy out into the blue water to use fully its advantages and not be susceptible to its own disadvantages.

Blademaster

Actually India is close to being a blue water navy than China. Don't be too surprised if InN can hold its own against Canadian naval task without the American carriers. It has far more aerial & maritime recon assets than you would think.

Wraith601

The only way I could see Canada feasibly operating carriers were if they were something akin to the Invincable class. Basically just glorified helo carreir with room for a few Harriers or maybe F-35Bs later on. Even then the manpower and budget limitaions would likely cripple the Canadian fleet.

Canada could realistically use something like the LPD-17, but again the cost is too high.

I do think they should look into getting some Burke's though, I think Uncle Sam would gladly kick BIW or Ingalls some cash in order to sudsidize the massive improvement in Canadian capabilities they'd bring.

HistoricalDavid

My God, carriers, battleships, cruisers and destroyers, all for a navy which at the moment has destroyers. If Canada were to ramp up defence spending to WWII levels, with the attendant misery in living standards, sure it could achieve it. However, realistically you should not overburden yourselves with too many different platforms (with attendant costs in R&D, different maintenance schedules, crew training) and concentrate, as said by others with more expertise, on slotting in with the big boys. That way, more economies of scale are achieved, so instead of being a jack of all trades, you focus on a few specialities.

Not even the US Navy has a chance of renovating the old battleships, let alone building new ones.

gunnut

I would dare say that 8 ships similar to the Alvaro de Bazan class, 4 per coast, the 12 ships of the Halifax class, plus support vessels, will be more than adequate for the Canadian navy. It would be nice to have a small carrier or an assault carrier, but that money might be better spent elsewhere.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

B.Smitty

Umm.. what does Canada need with all these ships? Do they have any expeditionary aspirations?

They certainly don't need anything more than Halifax class frigates for border patrol.

How 'bout beefing up your amphibious fleet first, then worry about carriers and large escorts.

Forget about battleships. They're a gigantic waste.