Skip to content

Build Your Own Navy:Canada Edition

May 26, 2010

HMCS Toronto (FFH 333)

Here is a little game that was originally conceived by David Axe at War is Boring, and which New Wars has put its own spin upon. For this particular post we will play around with some funds for the Canadian navy. Of late, budget difficulties and barely averted ship cuts has some questioning just what type of fleet does the world’s largest country needs.

For the next few years the Canadian Government has allocated about $3 billion USD for the modernization of its 12 Halifax class frigates, plus an unknown amount for its Victoria class submarines. So lets say you had $3 billion USD to spend. Instead of modernizing older vessels which may or may not be right for  modern and future problems of seapower, you could rebuild the fleet. Here are some choices of what you could buy with those same funds:


  • 30 Gotlands @ $100 million each
  • 8 Type 214s @ $350 million each

Frigate types

  • 11 Absalon command frigates @ $269 million each
  • 17 Holland class patrol vessels @ $169 million

Corvette types

  • 21 Baynunah corvettes @ $137 million each
  • 16 Visby corvettes @ $184 million each
  • 60 Knud Rasmussen patrol ships @ $50 million each
  • 15 Sea Fighter fast sea frames @ $200 million each

Patrol Ships

  • 63 Clyde patrol vessels @ $47 million each
  • 63 Sentinel cutters @ $47 million each
  • 47 Protector (Otago) Multi-Role Vessels @ $62.6 million

Fast Attack Craft

  • 22 Skjold patrol boats @ $133.5 million each
  • 500 Stiletto prototype littoral ships @ $6 million each

Amphibious Warships

  • 10 Bay class LSDs @ $288 million
  • 8 Johan De Witt LPDs @ $370 million
  • 5 Mistral assault ships @ $529.8 million each
  • 21 Endurance LSTs @ $142 million

Support Ships (Motherships)

  • 6 Berlin replenishment ships @ $445 million each
  • 18 Joint High Speed Vessels @ $160 million each
  • 17 Wave Knight fleet tankers @ $172 million each

Of course, these examples were given just to reveal what could be purchased on a limited budget. Prices would vary, and naturally you would want balance, instead of all Berlin class or Absalons (sorry Scott!). With this in mind, toward a balanced and strengthened Canadian Navy, ready for the present and future, here is my fleet, built with $3 billion:

  • 4 Gotland submarines total-$400 million
  • 12 Knud Rasmussen patrol ships total-$600 million
  • 20 Clyde patrol vessels total-$940 million
  • 6 Wave Knight fleet tankers total-$1032

Total-$2.972 billion with 42 new warships added to the fleet. Now its your turn in the comments. Enjoy!


83 Comments leave one →
  1. DRD permalink
    May 8, 2019 1:50 am

    With the situation in the Arctic getting more attention, ice capable submarines are what Canada needs. I think Canada should get 6 Scorpene Subs, 6 Shortfin Barracuda Subs and 6 Arctic version of the Shortfin Barracuda. Then Canada will have a decent presence in the North. This is in addition to other investments (like more SCS ships, AORs, LHDs and aircraft carrier versions of the LHD to name a few).

  2. Michael P. permalink
    November 26, 2018 11:49 pm

    In my opinion a very well equipped Canadian Navy would need to consist of:
    x2 PA2 Aircraft Carriers (CATOBAR)
    x18 Sejong the Great Destroyers
    x23 Absalon Class Frigates (or FREMM)
    x18 Gotland Class Submarines
    x10 Ohio Class (Updated) Nuclear Submarines
    x20 Knud Rasmussen Corvettes (apparently they can be used in the arctic?? Don’t take my word for it)

    x10 River Class Patrol Ships
    x6 Skjold Class Fast Attack Craft
    x6 Wave Knight Fleet Tankers
    x9 AOPV *That are actually decently armed*
    x2 Jason Class LST’s
    x2 Bay Class LSD’s
    x2 San Antonio Class LPD’s
    x2 Mistral Class Assault ships (Helicopter Carriers)
    x12 Katanpaa Mine Countermeasure Ships

    Although this is my dream for the RCN, I know, sadly this will never ever happen. We will slowly dwindle away from our already bad state, because of lack of funding, and politicians accusing other politicians of “war mongering.” I wish we had a defence budget of 4.6- 5% of our GDP. As things are really heating up in the world, it seems that we should be really stepping up on defence, instead of being the soft, thinking nothing is going to happen to them country. Defence should be a #1 priority of any country, it is the only thing that prevents a country’s way of life being taken from them.

  3. DRD permalink
    November 3, 2018 12:08 pm

    Tom, I like your thinking. Especially the last one.

  4. Tom Arnold permalink
    October 30, 2018 4:21 am

    Well, with the DND’s choice of the Type 26 frigate, first AOPS in the water, Asterix in service and JSS slowly starting, then this is what I’d like to see.
    -6 Type 26 outfitted as a AWD destroyer by removing most of the flexible middle space (where they show several RIBS or container storage) and inserting as many vertical launch tubes as possible…perhaps up to 72 cells?
    -16 Type 26 frigates for anti-sub work
    -5 Spanish Juan Carlos type LHD’s. Three for standard troop and helicopter amphibious operations (1 west, 2 east) and two converted for F-35 operations…..a mini aircraft carrier (1 east, 1 west). Remove the rear well deck and reconfigure the garages in order to increase aircraft storage and av fuel. Much like the US had done to two of the larger America Class LHD’s. This should allow for about 16-20 F-35’s.
    -4 of the Dutch Enforcer design Landing Platform Dock (2 east, 2 west). Three to run alongside the LHD’s and one for amphibious training, flight qualifications, equipment transport to distant locations, etc.
    -3 of the current JSS design
    -3 Asterix. Since the first conversion appears to be very successful and cheap then two more would help in our long range deployments, humanitarian relief, artic resupply, international commitments to other navies and exercises, and training.
    -7 AOPS
    -8 corvettes for patrol of Canadian waters and you could also send one to the Caribbean for anti-drug patrols and another off of east or west Africa for anti-pirate work and training (ie diplomatic) links with those countries navies.
    -8 long range subs to stay with the LHD’s, go under the ice, or join other international operations. I still don’t think Canadian politicians would accept a nuke option….but I would. Let’s try the French for this one as we don’t want to get hit by the Brits again.
    -7 smaller subs, similar to the German type, for North American deployments (3 west, 4 east)
    -2 support ships for sub rescue, diver support and salvage (one each coast)
    -2 hydrographic ships, 1 for each coast
    -3 Polar 8 ice breakers (under the Coast Guard command but perhaps with easy to install defensive armament?)
    -1 flamingo shaped pedal boat for the Rideau Canal

  5. DRD permalink
    October 20, 2018 6:41 pm

    Yes, now we are starting to look like a modern (and younger) navy. The first AOPS in the water, the first steel has been cut in the JSS program and next frigate has been chosen. Lets hope it continues.
    Now I would more ships to be started and entered into the RCN. Ships like 6 Coastal subs (like the U 212a type), 6 larger subs (like the Shortfin Barracuda type), 4 LHD (like the Juan Carlos II ships) and 4 more larger JSS ships). I would like more vessels to but I will keep this one short today.

  6. David Dunlop permalink
    July 18, 2018 3:46 pm

    Here is an update to my “real & credible” Future Canadian Fleet:

    4 x Arleigh Burke Class (Flight III) destroyers-15B CDN

    15 x Type 26 Global Combat Ships (3/4 to be AAW BMD capable)-8 East/7 West-$62B CDN

    2 x America Class LHA’S (one per coast)-$9B CDN

    4 X Juan Carlos Class LHD’S (two per coast)-$6B CDN

    12 X Astute Class SSN’s (6 per coast)-50B CDN
    12 X French Barracuda Class SSN’s (6 per coast)-50B CDN (with updated Lithium Ion Battery Technology)

    2 X Resolve Class AOR’s-$1.8B CDN

    2 X Protecteur Class AOR’s-$4.2B CDN

    6 X AOPS Harry DeWolf Class-5.8B CDN

    3 X John Diefenbaker Heavy Ice Breakers-6B CDN

    Total Combatants & Polar Ice Breaker Vessels-50 ships

    Total Costs=$159.8B CDN

    With an increase in Defence spending of at least 2% GDP, this fleet would be very feasible with no ill effects on our strong Canadian economy.

  7. David Dunlop permalink
    April 28, 2018 1:08 pm

    Here is what a “real & credible” Future Canadian Fleet will look like:

    15 x Type 26 Global Combat Ships (3/4 to be AAW BMD capable)-8 East/7 West-$62B CDN

    2 x America Class LHA’S (one per coast)-$9B CDN

    4 X Juan Carlos Class LHD’S (two per coast)-$6B CDN

    12 X Astute Class SSN’s (6 per coast)-50B CDN

    2 X Resolve Class AOR’s-$1.8B CDN

    2 X Protecteur Class AOR’s-$4.2B CDN

    8 X AOPS Harry DeWolf Class-6.8B CDN

    3 X John Diefenbaker Heavy Ice Breakers-6B CDN

    Total Combatants & Coast Guard Vessels-48 ships

    Total Costs=$145.8B CDN

    With an increase in Defence spending of at least 2% GDP, this fleet would be very feasible with no ill effects on our strong Canadian economy.

  8. DRD permalink
    December 14, 2017 12:35 pm

    Finally we have a little progress with the re-equipping of the navy. AOPS finally looks like a ship, the Halifax class ships are modernised and a supply ship has been delivered to the navy. Not much but a start. Now, lets hope that the momentum keeps going and us more ships. Maybe get Davie to build another supply ship and Irving to build some AOPS for the coast guard and Seaspan to get the supply ships going. Also start looking at new subs too and an through deck amphibious assault ship or 2. We can only dream.

  9. Rob II permalink
    July 14, 2017 11:46 pm

    With the new budget increases announced Canada has the funds to perpetually build a SSN fleet. The Barracuda class would be the best solution. Partner with the Naval Group (formerly DCNS) and build 10 to 12 in Canada. The only naval asset effectively able to patrol Canada’s coasts. Also the only asset able to conduct cyber warfare in addition to ASW, ASuW, RSI, special forces ops, sea denial anywhere in the world without support.

    We don’t have the funds to keep up a broad range of capabilities. Surface blue-water naval vessels are for show. Canada needs a navy that is flexible, independent and capable. That is best fulfilled by an SSN fleet.

    If we try and build a navy of 15 to 20 surface combatants and new SSKs we still will not have a sub that can keep up with a surface fleet making our fleet vulnerable to submarine attack while abroad. None of the ships in our naval inventory would be able to patrol the Arctic (perhaps the slush breakers for a few weeks with coast guard support) and we would need at least 2 support ships dedicated to any mission to keep our fleet going. The fleet model doesn’t work for Canadian defence and provides questionable value for international deployment due to vulnerabilities in ASW.

    In addition to the SSN fleet, a fleet of 12 to 15 helicopter carrying OPVs that can patrol Canadian waters and beyond effectively patrolling and defending North America would complete our West and East coast defence. Join deepwater OPV acquisition for commonality and reduced costs for USCG and our navy. Build 5 to 6 heavy icebreakers for the North and build a northern naval base to birth them and optionally an few SSNs. Make the CCG a constabulary force and place them under the navy like the USCG. The OPVs would be under the CCG.

    This would allow the Canadian military enough funds to build 88 to 120 fighters (preferably Saab Gripen Es with cruise missiles and develop conformal tanks), acquire drones (Avenger Predator C), develop space capabilities and properly equip and restructure the army.

  10. Bern permalink
    January 13, 2017 1:01 am

    The $4.3 Billion is for the midlife refit of the 12 Halifax class frigates and not a replacement. The replacement cost is approximately $2 billion per ship with the first ship (CSC) probably being commissioned in the late 2020’s

  11. Nick J. permalink
    December 28, 2016 11:52 pm

    I really like this debate, it really seems like we could be getting so much more for the money than we are.

    I would like to make a couple minor updates to the theoretical navy however:

    The first article states the Canadian government plans to spend $4.3 billion on Halifax Frigate replacement. The second states that the Canadian government plans to spend between $1.5~$3 billion to upgrade Victoria class subs. I’m gonna go ahead and use the low end of the guestimates for my numbers, that means that i will have a $5.8 billion budget for ship procurement ($4.3+$1.5=$5.8).

    With this budget, this would be my fleet:
    [6] Ivar Huitfeldt $325M each
    [12] Knud Rasmussen $50M each
    [15] Sentinel Cutter $65M each
    [6] U214 $350M each

    For a grand total of $5.7 Billion. I think that this would supply Canada with a pretty decent fleet, and one with far more capability than the current fleet AND a submarine force that can actually go to sea.

  12. Einar Davison permalink
    December 15, 2016 2:01 pm

    Hi Bern,

    My deepest apologies, I rechecked my sources and found I had made a dramatic error and your numbers are a lot closer. I get 1.34% of GDP, however as 2016 hasn’t finished yet my GDP numbers were estimates, so by the time all is said and done it will probably be lower too. I should have known it was to good to be true! This means that over the last 10 years Canada has underspent the 2% target by $139 billion dollars. Imagine what we could have done with that. I absolutely agree anything less than 1% puts us in the ranks of Slovenia and that for a G7 country with the largest coastline in the world and the challenges of most of that being in the arctic. Definitely pathetic, negligent and even a bit risky considering the wealth of natural resources this country has that we aren’t protecting.

    I disagree with you I don’t think you inject more politics into procurement because that is what has caused most of the problem. If you have the two major parties try to figure out procurement it will never get done because they will have differing views. The problem is with the political parties is that they are political, the parties don’t have a lot of people who have a background in defence (or if they do, they tend to get caught up in the politics and suddenly they forget from where they came from). So they tend to do what is in the party interest. I can’t see why DND can’t be in charge of their own procurement.

    In an organization I am part of, I meet with our operations people to determine our operating and capital requirements for the year. They tell me what they need for equipment. I make up my budget and I then take it to the board to approve the budget. They make changes they think are required if any and approve the budget. Keep in mind we keep our budget requests close to previous years, (if we come with a budget for twice as much of course it isn’t going to be approved,) but generally it goes up a bit every year. Then we put out RFP’s for equipment based upon our requirements. Our requirements are not as complicated, but we are competent enough to make them and so should DND and the defence staff.

    If our defence staff and senior bureaucrats of the defence department are incapable of this, you keep firing people until you find someone who can. That is their job, just as it is my job with my organization. Ultimately the two criteria I would use is 1. Getting the best equipment that meets our operational needs into the hands of the sailors, soldiers and airmen. 2. Getting the best value for the taxpayers dollar. The latter being the one which tends to go off the tracks quickly because what is “value”? Value to me is getting the “biggest bang for the buck” that still falls within a long term strategic plan.

    I would love it if we could have three ampibious ships and I am assuming you are talking about USS Wasp or USS America Class LHD. Which would be ideal! With three you would have one at sea, one doing work-ups and one doing refits you probably could get away with 36 F-35B’s and it depends on what the mission is. They can carry a Canadian battlegroup and all its equipment. The US generally only send 6 Harriers as a standard complement, but you could carry up to 20 of the F-35B’s if you were going to use it in an aircraft carrier role. There are a couple of problems I see, we run the risk of doing what the Brits did buying their aircraft carriers, the cost stripped money that should have been used replacing their Destroyers and Frigates and I suspect it would be even worse for Canada. Don’t get me wrong I see these ships as a multi purpose ship that could be used in a naval task force as a command ship/light aircraft carrier, used in the amphibious role or it could be used to deliver troops to an operational area. We, pardon the pun, missed the boat on the French Mistal which we could have got fairly inexpensively. They were probably giving them away cheaply after the deal with the Russians fell through. I bet they will be much more expensive now. The US ships are considerably more expensive, the US has all the production used up (it’s not like cutting us a C-17 from the assembly line) and I suspect that there are a lot of things the US has built into them that they don’t want their allies to have (because we are not the most security minded bunch).

    Going back to the Large Medium Speed Roll on/Roll Off Vessel (LMSR), you could maybe do what the Brits did with HMS Ocean take a merchant ship and convert it into an amphibious helicopter carrier. Basically if you put a flight deck and hanger on an LMSR type ship you have an LHD. The only thing it might be missing is the well dock, however I’m finding shipyards can do some pretty amazing things these days. The nice thing of all this is that you still leave enough on the table to get us new “medium combat ships” (destroyer/frigate sized ships).

    Ultimately though the bottom line is even if we were at 2%, there would never be enough money, so we need to prioritze our spending on what meets our operational requirements at home and abroad and we need to figure out what that is. Then we need to look at how we are going to man the equipment. Yes we need more money for recruiting personnel, but we have to keep in mind, not everyone wants to be a soldier, sailor or airman. Unless you can make a career in the army, navy and airforce as a desirable occupation your recruiting pool is pretty small. Governments tend to reflect their people, if the government doesn’t believe the armed forces are important it is because the rest of us probably feel that way too. Those of us with passion generally tend to have been connected to the forces via cadets, reserves or regular forces or have had family involved.

    Thank you Bern for catching my error and I apologize to the readers for that error. Lets keep lobbying our government now and in the future to hit the 2% target and stop scavaging from the defence budget to look like heroes with the taxpayer or to do social engineering. Sometimes government needs to step up and do the right thing and the 2% target is the right thing.

  13. Bern permalink
    December 15, 2016 12:43 am

    Good comments EBD but the GDP # you are using I assume is in US dollars and your defense expenditures must be in CDN dollars and even then you can’t come up with 1.94% of GDP spent on defense. The actual forecast expenditures (~$18.75B) on defense for 2016 will be slightly less than 1% of CDN GDP. A pathetic amount considering our wealth and geography.

    The air force would have a land based fighter for arctic/Norad operations and the F35B would be utilized to project power in overseas operations with a secondary domestic role. With 3 amphibious assault ships and 15 F35B per ship plus spares for training, maintenance etc, I would say 60 is a good number and something we as a nation can afford.

    First and foremost we must fix the procurement mess by developing some type of a bipartisan committee from the 2 major political parties and that committee would manage all future major capital requirements.

  14. Magnus1 permalink
    December 13, 2016 5:46 pm

    Well said. I agree with your commentary on most everything.
    As far as a surface combatant replacement, I would favour either the French FREMM class or the RN’s projected Type 26, which is being considered by Australia and others. This might prove a cost saver with more customers. I would also consider expanding the submarine force, say 8 boats and consider the DSN Shortfim Barracuda as an option.

  15. EBD permalink
    December 13, 2016 2:31 pm

    Well some good news is that the 2016 defence budget was raised to 9.6% of Gov’t of Canada revenue and 1.94% of GDP ($1.5 trillion dollar GDP) and this while the GDP is $300 billion less than average. Significantly better than when we were fightting a war in Afghanistan where the average was around 1.2% dropping almost to 1.1% after Canada’s involvement and when Canada’s GDP was much higher.

    To reply to you Bern in my humble opinion, the destroyers and frigates will be one class in the new ship and we will run the Halifax Class frigates until the bottoms rust out of them as they have turned out to be pretty darn good ships and have just gone through mid-life refits. The Kingston Class will also continue to sail on until the bottoms fall out of them too, though they haven’t been as successful as the Halifax Class. The Absalon is a pretty versatile ship, (which you didn’t mention) but the shipyard that built it is now closed down, so I’m not so sure if more Absalons class ships could be built. I tend to worry about buying others designs because they are generally optimized for those countries. One has to admit Canada’s at home and blue water requirements are pretty complex and I’m not so sure a “swiss army knife” solution will fit our needs.

    I suspect our sub force will remain at 4 boats, as submarines are pretty specialized and with a small navy finding volunteers for subs is probably not that easy. However it is a capability we don’t want to lose. I like the new HDW 216 as it does a lot of what we would need it to do and we could probably convince them to build the boats in Canada. I wouldn’t buy any thing from the Brits because they have screwed the RN up so badly we really don’t need to inject that sickness into our navy.

    I’m kind of starting to like the Resolve class AOR because it is actually going to give us more for less money. I think we should build the other two possible ships in the Resolve class and forget the Berlin Class AOR. We’ll save a forturne and get ships a lot quicker.

    I doubt we could afford to buy and I’m also sure the Americans wouldn’t sell us anything amphibious as they have all their production earmarked for their own and there is no way they will share their plans with us. However there are lots of other possibilities out there that might work. We have not undertaken any true amphibious operations since the Korean war. However we do need a sealift capability because the 5 C-17’s we have would be challenged to move any large force. Something similar to the USNS Bob Hope would probably cover everything we need for sealift and could move a Canadian battle group and all its equipment. It does 24 knots too which is nothing to “sneeze at” for speed. You could build a landing deck for helicopters and also build in a command and control suite. You may not be able to do full blown amphibious like the US but again it would cover off a lot of capability and give the force some real flexibility. We probably could afford it easier than buying a USS Wasp type ship.

    60 F-35B V/STOL aircraft, that probably wouldn’t happen because the F-35B is not suited too intercept in the arctic so it will probably stay F-35A’s if and when they are ready with all the bugs worked out. Someday the F-35 will be a great airplane, but not anytime soon. If you had a USS Wasp type ship, you probably would only carry a squadron of F-35B’s so 60 would be overkill. Remember to get the best value from a USS Wasp type ship, you have a mix of fighter/bombers, helicopters. I’m not so sure we can afford to build a naval air fleet.

    I’m going to give you my humble opinion that the Canadian army doesn’t need a “marine” regiment. The Canadian Army is a multipurpose force that has more in common with the United States Marines than it does with the US Army. Many of our infantry regiments do amphibious training with the USMC frequently. Do we need a dedicated “marine” force I don’t think so. We really need to think long and hard whether we can afford an amphibious force and take into account the amount of amphibious operations we do. I suspect when we crunch the numbers, sealift capability will top the list over amphibious any day.

    Finally, we only have so many dollars, so many personnel and recruiting for the military these days isn’t easy. We can only buy and man so many ships so we need to find a good balance.

  16. Bern permalink
    December 13, 2016 1:39 am

    With a 2 Trillion dollar economy and very unstable world, Canada needs a substantial Navy, a larger Air Force and a moderate size Army/Marine force backed up with a defense budget that is 2+% of GDP. With that type of budget we should have the following;

    8 AAD Destroyers
    16 Frigates
    12 OPV or corvettes
    10-12 long range submarines with AIP
    6 Berlin Class replenishment ships
    3 Amphibious Assault ships (American Class)
    Require fleet of ASW, attack, and transport helicopters to fully support fleet operations.
    60 F35B jets
    Regiment of marines, on both the Atlantic & Pacific coast, with a battalion on a 6 month continuous rotation to a permanent arctic naval/air base.

  17. EBD permalink
    September 18, 2016 2:01 pm

    If memory serves the Halifax class cost an average of $700 million per ship and I suspect that just with what we saw with the icebreakers it cost twice as much to build them in Canada.

    Here is a question I’d like to ask the naval experts (serving members of the RCN, or those who are in shipbuilding). I am presuming that there is not a lot more you can do to ship hulls, other than new materials, but the hull forms have pretty much been optimised. Is it possible to design say four hull lengths and then instead of modularization, task optimise them to a specific role? For instance in the AA role you would put more emphasis on AA radar, AA missiles and guns and maybe you would delete a helicopter. In Anti Sub, you would have more weight on AA sensors, and weapons maybe two helicopters like the Iroquois class and close in support AA weapons only. You could have a ship for naval bombardment with more weight on cruise missiles, anti ship missiles and maybe two 5″ guns like the Oto Melara system. Basically putting different systems on the same hull.

    My next thought would be if you could do that then why not just build one or two new ships a year using the same hull, but on a continuous improvement strategy. As better sensors, weapons and propulsion systems come on line you rewrite the designs to incorporate them. There needs to be a strategy where we keep our yards from losing capability (which they then need to buy back at a greater price to the RCN), we would maybe getting away from ships rusting out before they get replaced and our sailors would be always getting the most up to date equipment or at least reasonably up to date.

    The situation we are in now is no different then when we needed to replace the St Laurent, Annapolis and Restigouche class ships. They had cracked hulls, cracked boilers and vacuum tubes which we had to purchase from communist Czechoslovakia. Not as bad, but we are running our current ships to the edge or even beyond their lifespan and then winding up having to do procurement on the fly or as in the case of the Sea Kings flying them passed the point of safety. We also need to have ships with hardened bows to be able to handle ice conditions in the “ice free” areas of the Arctic

    The issues though are the same, not enough money to build, not enough people to crew them and no apparent strategy to work around those two issues.

    For the Arctic, which is wide open, submarines are the best option. Especially if there ever is a potential for a shooting war. Back when the 1987 Whitepaper was released the only choice was nuclear boats, however with the new AIP systems, a diesel boat can operate for extended period under water. True not as long as a nuclear boat, but at a more affordable cost and less of the NIMBY issue. If you had an effective sonar system like what was employed across the GIUK during the cold war then you wouldn’t have to have a submarine at each choke point in the Arctic. However the four subs we have right now, upgraded as they are have minimal under ice capability. We will need new subs.

    Currently we are using maritime patrol planes to assert our sovereignty and we do a pretty good job of that. My only question is, again in a shooting proposition how do they detect and engage a threat below the ice?

    I also worry when we buy ships of others. In many cases they are optimised for those countries. Denmark and Holland have one of the smallest coast lines in the world. They don’t have to spend a lot to protect them. In fact none of our NATO allies save the US have as large of a coast line as Canada. We obviously need equipment with range, endurance and ability to hand extreme temperature differentials…Resolute to the Persian Gulf or off the Horn of Africa.

    It’s always fun to do “what if’s” and have a shopping list of….if we had this much money to spend we could buy x amount of something. In most cases there are many variables that will affect what we really get in the end. Just the fact that a good chunk of our country is above the Arctic circle makes the Russians and Canada the only countries that have this as a big issue and the Russians still have a shipbuilding industry for that reason. Unfortunately Canada is still a pretty small populated country so the Irvings, the Washingtons (Seaspan) have more influence and get an undeserved but necessary premium for their work. However I’d think it would be a bad thing for us not to have a shipbuilding industry in Canada.

    Finally our current defence budget is about $15 billion per year of which 60 to 70% is probably used for maintaining what we already have. This doesn’t leave a lot for capital expenditures. We are at present slightly over 1% of GDP, we should be at 2%, and really for the size of country and the amount of land, sea and airspace we “own” we probably should be at 3%. I’m thinking that by the time you take everything into account we could probably afford to buy 1 new combat ship (destroyer/frigate) and a submarine per year. I think that is about the only way this gets done with what we have in the defence budget and in personnel. Then not everyone wants to be or has the personality for being a submariner and it is definitively a highly skilled occupation. Lots of challenges and of course that adds cost to the problem too. I’m looking forward to comments and opinions back. Thank you!

  18. DRD permalink
    September 17, 2016 10:41 pm

    With the subs and sensors, agreed, we need more of both. As for the $3 billion figure, that was 2010 money. If we were to spend that money then with some off the shelf stuff, the RCN would be bigger today.

  19. E.B.D permalink
    September 13, 2016 6:32 pm

    I believe it is more than $3 billion because really you don’t get much for $3 billion. It is more like $30 billion over 10 or 15 years. I also say that by the time you modify of the shelf ships to better fit Canadian needs they will be just as expensive as designing and building purpose built ships in Canada. Canada’s back door is wide open. By this I mean the Canadian Arctic. I would bet that with the depth of it under the ice, you can figure the Russians will make use of this as alternate route to get subs into the Atlantic or the Pacific and run around the Arctic unchecked. So we need to develop arctic proof underwater sensors and probably grow a larger submarine fleet so that we can keep an eye on what is happening below the surface of our part of the Arctic Ocean. There are approximately 14 choke points and so that means with the rule of three (one in repair, one doing work-ups and one at sea) That is 42 subs and that will probably never happen. Assuming that the new U216 class will cost about $600 million+ that alone is $25 Billion+. It’s fun to dream but unless Canadians decide that spending more money on defence is worthwhile and more young people feel that a career in the army, navy or airforce is a worthwhile pursuit. Nothing will change and the largest coastline in the world will remain virtually undefended or at very least once again defended by worn out and obsolete ships.

  20. Vldbzh permalink
    June 8, 2016 4:41 am

    Current prices are underestimated a lot. Gotland submarine costs ~$350 m, type 214 – $500 m, Clyde patrol vessel – ~$98 m.

  21. Anonymous permalink
    April 20, 2016 1:44 am

    For all you arm chair admirals. The Canadian government is letting you say what you want for a future Canadian Navy. Just go to a search engine (like google or Yahoo) and enter Canadian policy review. There is 6 areas to enter you ideas or thoughts on the Canadian military. It goes from now to the end of July 2016. So if you are like me who want a bigger navy for Canada, do it.

  22. Anonymous permalink
    December 10, 2015 2:14 am

    This is what I think
    3x Mistral class with a ski jump
    6 x type 26 Global combat ship with enhance air defence and land support
    6 AOPS
    8 x Formidable class
    12 x enhanced Visby class
    4 Queenston class AOR/JSS
    6 x HDS 500 submarine
    6 x HDS 1800/U214 or Scorpene submarine
    4 x Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A or U216 submarine
    3 x Damen shipyard 120 lst
    6 x Damen shipyard landing ship logistic 80

  23. Gehard permalink
    March 18, 2015 2:30 am

    After reading the various comments from the Canadian government, I believe that the next 15 warships will be:

    3 or 4: Absalon – Class Support Ship (Danish)

    The class is based on a frigate-like design, but built with an internal multipurpose deck (flex deck) and a stern vehicle ramp. The ships can serve as command platforms for a staff of 75 persons (naval or joint staff) with a containerized command and control centre, transport and base of operations for a company-sized landing force of some 200 men with vehicles. Alternatively, the flex deck can be used for mine-laying operations with a capacity of some 300 mines, or be fitted out for mine-clearing operations and launch and recover mine detecting and clearing equipment via a retractable gantry crane, adjacent to the stern vehicle ramp, which also is used for launching and recovering the fast landing craft. Furthermore the flex deck can support a containerized hospital or simply transport a number of ISO standard containers or some 55 vehicles including, up to 7 MBTs. The ships can carry two LCPs (Storebro SB90E), two rigid hull inflatable boats and two EH101 helicopters.

    10 : Frigate Iver Huitfeld Class (Danish)

    The class is built on the experience gained from the Absalon-class support ships, and by reusing the basic hull design of the Absalon class the Royal Danish Navy have been able to construct the Iver Huitfeldt class considerably cheaper than comparable ships.The frigates are compatible with the Danish Navy’s StanFlex modular mission payload system used in the Absalons, and are designed with slots for six modules. Each of the four stanflex positions on the missile deck is able to accommodate either the Mark 141 8-cell Harpoon launcher module, or the 12-cell Mark 56 ESSM VLS.

    While the Absalon-class ships are primarily designed for command and support roles, with a large ro-ro deck, the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates will be equipped for an air defence role with Standard Missiles, and the potential to use Tomahawk cruise missiles, a first for the Danish Navy.

    1 or 2 : Mistral (France)

    The Mistral class is a class of three amphibious assault ships, also known as a helicopter carrier, of the French Navy. Referred to as “projection and command ships” , a Mistral-class ship is capable of transporting and deploying 16 NH90 or Tiger helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 vehicles including 13 AMX-56 Leclerc tanks, or a 40-strong Leclerc tank battalion, and 450 soldiers. The ships are equipped with a 69-bed hospital, and are capable of serving as part of a NATO Response Force, or with United Nations or European Union peace-keeping forces.


    The Canadian government announced that only two countries had submitted proposals in Canada. I noticed; that an Absalon class ship and a Mistral BPC (also FREMM Aquitaine) are coming to Halifax harbour and Quebec harbour. It appears to me that these ships will be chosen before the next federal election…

  24. Gehard permalink
    March 16, 2015 2:34 pm

    10: Frigate 124 Class Sachsen (Germany)

    Class 124 air defence frigate gives the German Navy long range air defence in home waters and in support of allied operations anywhere on the globe, including the potential for theatre ballistic missile defence. Sensors and Weapons for AAW, ASW, ASuW Crew 150 + 40 helicopter/special force 2 NH-90

    2: Frigate 125 Class (Germany)

    The new F125 frigate will have the capability to be deployed worldwide for up to two years before returning to the home base and can be operated up to 5,000 hours a year, including under tropical conditions. In this concept the crew is rotated while the ship remains in theatre. Crew 120 + 70 helicopter/special force. 2 NH-90

    8: Frigate Meko Valour Class (Germany)

    The ships of the Valour-class are equipped with an assortment of multi-purpose weapons, each fulfilling a vital role in naval warfare including anti-surface, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine warfare. Crew 100 to 120

    4: Berlin Class Type 702 (Germany)
    Berlin-class can transport 9,600 cubic meters of fuel, 550 cubic meters of water, 160t of ammunition, 280t of food, 100t of dry stores and 32 containers.The ship can accomodate two helicopters and is equipped with in-flight refuelling capabilities (HIFR). The loading and offloading of cargo is carried out by two 24t cranes.The large modular hospital (MERZ) has 45 beds for general patients and four for intensive care (including hospital ward). It also includes a clinical and microbiological laboratory, sterilisers and workshops.

    12 Meko Offshore Patrol Vessels (Germany) Coast Guard

    OPV tasks range from long routines of surveillance and inspection to enforcement by interdiction, arrest and if need be, low-intensity combat, particularly where armed and lawless groups (e.g. piracy or terrorism) pose a threat to maritime security and the peaceful passage of trade. At the same time the OPV must always be capable of search and rescue and maritime disaster response. These tasks require ships that are designed for sustained blue-water operations and that are robust, reliable, simple to operate and easy to maintain crew 50 to 65

    2: Absalon Class support ship (Danemark)

    The class is based on a frigate-like design, but built with an internal multipurpose deck (flex deck) and a stern vehicle ramp. The ships can serve as command platforms for a staff of 75 persons (naval or joint staff) with a containerized command and control centre, transport and base of operations for a company-sized landing force of some 200 men with vehicles. Alternatively, the flex deck can be used for mine-laying operations with a capacity of some 300 mines, or be fitted out for mine-clearing operations and launch and recover mine detecting and clearing equipment via a retractable gantry crane, adjacent to the stern vehicle ramp, which also is used for launching and recovering the fast landing craft. Furthermore the flex deck can support a containerized hospital or simply transport a number of ISO standard containers or some 55 vehicles including, up to 7 MBTs.) crew 169 2 EH-101

    2: Mistral (France)

    Amphibious assault ships crew 177 + possibility of 400 marines/soldiers

    6: U-Bott 212-A (Germany)

    The submarine can operate at high speed on diesel power or switch to the AIP system for silent slow cruising, staying submerged for up to three weeks without surfacing and with no exhaust heat. The system is also said to be vibration-free, extremely quiet and virtually undetectable. Crew 28

    6: Barracuda (France)

    Barracudas will use technology from the Triomphant-class, including pump jet propulsion. This class reportedly produces approximately 1/1000 of the detectable noise of the Redoutable-class boats (submarines), and they are ten times more sensitive in detecting other submarines. They will be fitted with torpedo-tube-launched cruise missiles MDCN SCALP Naval for long-range (well above 1,000 km (620 mi)) strikes against strategic land targets. Their missions will include anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare, land attack, intelligence gathering, crisis management and special operations. The Barracuda type will use X-shaped stern planes. Crew 60

    20: CH-148 Cyclone (USA)

    The Sikorsky CH-148 is a twin-engine, multi-role shipboard helicopter being developed by the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation for the Canadian Forces.[

    20: EH-101 UK/Italie

    The AW101 was developed by joint venture between Westland Helicopters in the UK and Agusta in Italy in response to national requirements for a modern naval utility helicopter. Several operators, including the armed forces of Britain, Denmark and Portugal, use the name Merlin for their AW101 aircraft

    10: AH-64 Appache (USA)

    The Boeing AH-64 Apache is a four-blade, twin-engine attack helicopter with a tailwheel-type landing gear arrangement, and a tandem cockpit for a two-man crew. It features a nose-mounted sensor suite for target acquisition and night vision systems. It is armed with a 30 mm (1.18 in) M230 Chain Gun carried between the main landing gear, under the aircraft’s forward fuselage. It has four hardpoints mounted on stub-wing pylons, typically carrying a mixture of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and Hydra 70 rocket pods. The AH-64 has a large amount of systems redundancy to improve combat survivability.

    40 NH-90 UE

    The NH90 is a medium sized, twin-engine, multi-role military helicopter. It was developed in response to NATO requirements for a battlefield helicopter which would also capable of being operated in naval environments
    The NH90 has the distinction of being the first production helicopter to feature entirely fly by wire flight controls.There are two main variants, the Tactical Transport Helicopter (TTH) for Army use and the navalised NATO Frigate Helicopter (NFH); each customer typically has various alterations and customisations made to their own NH90 fleets, such as different weapons, sensors and cabin arrangements, to meet their own specific requirements.

  25. Anonymous permalink
    January 3, 2015 1:14 am

    I started thinking that maybe this is a better line up.

    24 large frigates (6 air defence, 6 general purpose, 6 land support (absalon style) and 6 escort ships (smaller versions of the frigates and faster).
    3 Mistral or Juan Carlos ships with ski jumps for fixed wing aircraft like UAVs and the F-35B.
    6 Queenston Class ships AOR
    8 AOPS
    8 Ocean SMX submarines from France.
    8 Scorpene submarines
    12 Kingston class
    16 Hero class combat ships
    24 Orca class
    8 x AP1-88 hovercraft
    16 x Griffon 2400 series hovercraft
    42 CB-90

  26. Singon Smyth permalink
    February 22, 2014 5:26 pm

    It wasn’t the Navy that saved England, it was its air force. Canada needs an interceptor force of at least 100-120 aircraft. I’d vote for the Gripen E for cost effectiveness.

    On to the Navy – Canada needs an SSN force for blue water / Arctic operations and some great patrol vessels. If it were my decision, Canada would join the USCG deepwater purchase of OPCs and invest in 12 to 15 medium size ships to patrol Canada and North America.

    The Barracuda class SSN would be a great project for Canada to join. Build a couple in France and the rest in Canada and use civilian grade fuel to power them. I’d say 8 to 10 SSNs for Arctic patrol / ISR / International fleet obligations and defence. Great thing about SSN subs is they are fast, can easily transit from on coast to another, are always a welcome addition to any international fleet, arguable the most powerful naval asset, requires minimal crew, does not need any support ships.

    Remember, the Russians have about 60 subs. Canada needs to pull its weight. We are never going to build the wish list most people are posting so why not put the $ in the most effective and efficient assets?

  27. DRD permalink
    January 9, 2014 2:27 am

    Now that the Canadian Government is commited to a number of programs and has began to fix the Victoria class, I thought it might be a good time to look at what $3 billion can add, in addition, to the current programs.

    2 x Mistral class with a ski jump @ $600m each, total 1.2b
    1 x Berlin class ships @ $500m
    4 x light multipurpose landing vessels (Frank S. Besson Class LSVs, a hybrid helicopter/semi-submersible version) @ $32m each, total $128m
    3 x Endurance LSTs @ $142 m each, total $426m
    9 x hero class reserve (res for short) (3 arctic capable for summer operations. ac for short) @ $22m each, total $192m
    9 x orca class res (3 ac) @ $16m each, total $144m
    4 x AP1-88 hovercraft @ $16m each, total $64
    32 x Griffon’s 2400TD series hovercraft @ $3m each, total $96m
    42 x Cb90 boats @ $6m each, total $252m
    Total cost $3.002b
    Total Vessels 106

  28. DRD permalink
    January 6, 2014 2:45 am

    I have been toying with a fantasy, enlarged RCN for a while. I know that this will never happen unless a serious miracle comes along. As I am not a fan of Nuclear Propulsion or weapons, I did not include any in this post. I also did not include aircraft as that is an RCAF item and this is for RCN needs. Still this would make for a powerful navy.

    8 x 216 class
    12 x 209/210 class
    16 x midget subs
    24 x meko csl
    18 x 6000 ton frigates (6 air defence, 6 general purpose and 6 Absalon style).
    12 x Halifax
    8 x Knud Rasmussen
    8 x AOPS
    4 x Modified Cavour class (with angled deck and capable of STOBAR operations)
    4 x Juan Carlos 1 class or Mistral class with a ski jump
    4 x Johan De Witt LPDs
    6 x Endurance LSTs
    12 x light multipurpose landing vessels (200 ton load)
    8 x light multipurpose landing vessels (Coast Guard, cg for short)
    8 x medium multipurpose landing vessels (1000 ton load)
    8 x Berlin class ships (4 normal, 4 larger with enhanced vehicle transport abilities)
    18 x fast patrol vessels with stealth and attack capabilities
    12 x hero class reserve (res for short) (3 arctic capable for summer operations. ac for short)
    12 x hero class cg (3 ac)
    12 x orca class res (3 ac)
    12 x orca class cg (3 ac)
    16 x orca class reg training
    8 x LCAC hovercraft
    12 x AP1-88 hovercraft
    8 x AP1-88 hovercraft (cg)
    48 x Griffon 2400 series hovercraft
    120 x Cb90 boats
    12 x Kingston class to be disarmed and transferred to cg

  29. DRD permalink
    January 4, 2014 3:25 am

    This is what I would like to see in the RCN. I do believe that this is an affordable and balanced force (including the multi-purpose amphibious ships with aircraft carrier capabilities). I included same ships that the Canadian Coast Guard can also use too. All the ships would be built here in Canada (yes I know that it does increase costs but I think it would be worth it). There are times when I would like to see even more ships but it would make the RCN too large to afford. I doubt that any ships will happened because the Government will not spend the initial funds to build these ships or funds to operate them.
    4 x 216 class
    8 x 209/210 class
    12 x meko csl
    12 x 6000 ton frigates (6 air defence, 6 general purpose). These would be replacing the 12 Halifax class and the 3 Iroquois class ships.
    6 x AOPS
    3 x Juan Carlos 1 class or Mistral class with a ski jump
    5 x Berlin class ships (3 normal, 2 larger with enhanced vehicle transport abilities)
    8 x light multipurpose landing vessels (200 ton load)
    8 x light multipurpose landing vessels (Coast Guard, cg for short)
    4 x medium multipurpose landing vessels (1000 ton load)
    12 x fast patrol vessels with stealth and attack capabilities
    12 x hero class reserve (res for short) (3 arctic capable for summer operations. ac for short)
    12 x hero class cg (3 ac)
    12 x orca class res (3 ac)
    12 x orca class cg (3 ac)
    8 x orca class reg training
    4 x LCAC hovercraft
    8 x AP1-88 hovercraft
    6 x AP1-88 hovercraft (cg)
    16 x Griffon 2400 series hovercraft
    88 x Cb90 boats
    12 x Kingston class to be disarmed and transferred to cg

  30. DRD permalink
    January 4, 2014 2:16 am

    For $3 billion, I would purchase the following
    2 x Type 214 @ $350m each, total $700m
    3 x Absalon command frigates @ $267m each, total $807m
    3 x Knud Rasmussen patrol ships @ $ 50m each, total $150m
    2 x Berlin class AOR @ $445m each, total $890m
    2 x Endurance LSTs @ $142m each, total $286m
    6 x Hero class patrol vessels @ $22m each total $132m
    Total ships 18
    Total cost $2.965b

  31. Anonymous permalink
    October 22, 2013 10:54 pm

    How about

    16 x FREMM multi-mission Frigates (upgradable with future LASER CIWS)
    8-12 Soryu Class SSK (Japan) with AIP
    4 x Berlin Class Replenishment Ships
    2 x San Antonio Assault Ships
    1 LHA (fantasy)
    24 Corvette Patrol Ships

  32. MagnusB permalink
    June 15, 2013 2:12 pm

    In regards to commentary on how to best project a Canadian presence in arctic waters, I think the government is failing to see just how futile the planned OPV’s will be in their capabilities. First, they are not icebreakers, as by now everyone knows. They are at best slush busters. The arctic is a vast area and for the most part its waterways will remained ice covered for a considerable time to come, even if only seasonally. These vessels will be slow and designed for a narrow frame of operations. Furthermore, in time, they will no doubt be called on to perform other duties in support of Canadian commitments around the globe, as it has been with all our available military assets. It seems ridiculous to pile a whole lot of money into vessels so limited in their designed capabilities. I think the government should scrap the whole notion of arctic OPV’s and concentrate on building a second, or even a third polar class icebreaker for the Coast Guard. These vessels will at least be able to conduct more far reaching operations than the OPV’s. If the federal government is at all serious about a military presence and protecting Canadian sovereignty, they might consider a squadron or two of long range strike fighters equipped with air to surface missiles, that could be based in the north and supported by adequate surveillance, i.e. airborne radar and drones, as well as inflight refuelling measures. Combat surface units will be rendered moot, for the most part. It’s one thing to show the flag and sail a frigate above the arctic circle in the summer months, but if the Royal Canadian Navy, wants to back up its bark with teeth, that would only mean procuring a minimum of three or four SSN’s. Air independent subs, might be good in a pinch, but to transit arctic waters year round, the best means is still nuclear. Even if operational as merely a fleet in being, just having nuclear subs will send a far stronger message to any potential intruder, than any constrained OPVs.

  33. Rob II permalink
    June 11, 2013 10:34 pm

    The LHA is not needed in Canada. Countries like Austrialia may have a need but not us. To defend Canada / North America we need two things: air superiority and peace time sea control with sea denial capabiltiy if a war ever comes. This is the most affordable and effective model.

    The Americans will have us covered but it doesn’t mean Canada should not have an effective interceptor / multirole fighter like the Gripen which is also cost effective. We could get 80 or more for what they want to waste on 65 F-35 semi-stealth ground attack aircraft not to mention 1/5 the cost per hour to fly. Not bad for a plane that performs similar to the Eurofighter, ans they can be built in Canada!

    As for constabulary sea patrol, Canada should join the USCG OPC procurement and add 8 or 9 units to the order. I personally like the SX151 submission but would like to have some ultra-heavy sea-state questions answered. Put the CCG under domain of the Navy like in the US. Stock the OPC with the AS565 which is the military version of the USCG Dolphin helicopter. This gives the capability of turning OPC into corvettes with ASW capability if needed. I’d also advocate for 8 more Hero class patol ships.

    The AOPS are a lemons. They can’t patrol longer than a few months where they are meant to be and are to slow to do anything else. What is more is that their military capabilities are laughable. Just cancel them and build 3 heavy icebrekers that can stay up north all year round for a continuous presence. Put one or two AS565s on each and there is your punch and SAR aircraft too. Maybe one AS565 and one EC225.

    For a Naval sea-denial there is only one vessel – an SSN. Canadians are smarter than many of you seem to think and with the proper introduction and marketing it will be accepted. SSNs can patrol our costs and approaches 365 days per year and double as our international support in NATO task forces and convoys negating the need for AORs we are now looking at getting. I agree the Barracuda class is perfect for Canada. No enriched fuel needed, small crew requirements. 6 would work but 8 would be ideal. 10 if we’re playing fantasy navy.

    If we really feel the need for a surface presence internationally there is aways the Absalon support ship or the FREMM class (DCNS would probably give us a package deal with the Barracuda) with a flex deck. I wouldn’t spend the $ on more than a handful of this class of vessel and no AOR support. If our allies want us to be part of a US/NATO task force we’ll use their AOR.

    For search and rescue we need to give the techs what they are asking for. Build 15-20 Buffalo NG SAR aircraft and procure more C-130Js. Supplement the Commornts with 15 EC225 SAR and buy the military version the EC725 for Army heavy lift and cancel those oversized Chinooks bought without tender. EC725 naval ASW for any Absalons or FREMMs. Two each.

    What the government could also do by focusing on a company like Eurocopter is get a great deal for several services and departments across Canada. Instead of buying equipment piecemeal, the government could say “we will buy x number of your helicopters for army, navy, CCG, SAR, medivac etc. if you build them in Canada. More than 50 and that is a go according to Eurocopter CEO. Remove the low level bureaucrat making purchase decisions (see ORNGE in Ontario) and find the ecomomies of scale in bulk purchasing. Everyone wins except the corrupt.

    That being said. Build the OPC in Canada, the heavy ice breakers, and of course the Hero class but seriously review the policy on building all Naval vessels in Canada. Learning curves for subs and warships is high and costs quickly go up. Canada building Barracuda class subs would be great but look at Yarrow in England (now BAE Systems). When they had a 10 year building gap it destroyed their capability just like out shipyards when the last Halifax class was commissioned. They would have to be another benefit to the construciton such as the Canadian Space Agency working together regarding the systems integration for a sub and keeping that capability for space. Which would also require expansion of the CSA’s roles but hey, that is the future of high tech jobs and R&D if you want Canada to stay on top.

    Aircraft (Exisiting and new):

    Air Force: Avenger Predator C UAV = 60
    Air Force: JAS 39 Gripen E/F (CF-118 replacements) = 80
    Army / Navy: EC725 (20 Army heavy lift, 10 Navy) = 30
    Army / CCG: EC645 (65 Griffon replacements) = 80
    Air Force: CC-117 Globemaster with DART Modules = 4
    Air Force: C-130J Hercules (Search and Rescue and Forces Transport) = 27
    Air Force: CC-150 Polaris Refuellers / Transports) = 5
    Army / Navy: AS565 (9 on SX121 and 3 PCIB) = 12
    Air Force: EC225 (30 SAR, 5 CCG) = 35
    CCG: EC145 (25 CCG, 60 air ambulance, 3 PCIB) = 88
    Pilatus PC-12 (35 Provincial medical transport) = 35
    Air Force: DHC-5NG S&R = 15


    Navy Barracuda class SSN = 6 (15b) 60 crew (360 crew)
    Navy Absalon Command Frigate = 5 (6.5b) 110 crew (550 crew)
    CCG SX151 OPC = 9 (4.5b) 70 crew (630 crew)
    CCG Hero class patrol vessel = 8 (17 total) (300m) 14 crew (238 crew)
    CCG Polar Icebreaker Arctic patrol vessel = 3 (4b)
    Other replacement vessels = 114 (2b)

  34. Anonymous permalink
    June 10, 2013 3:21 pm

    Here is a budget navy based on what we need (Canada first defence policy) and some reasonable beefing up
    10 DDG $850M per ship (options on 6 more) 8.5 billion (replaces DDH 208&CPF 4 in storage 2 CPF used as target ships 3 DDH-280’s used as target ships.)*
    8 AOPV $100M per ship (options on 6 more) 0.8 billion*
    3 Berlin AOR $445M per ship 1.4 billion (replaces Provider & Protecture AOR)*
    12 Milgem frigates $260M per ship (options on 6 more) 3.1 billion (replaces Kingston turned over to RCMP)**
    12 Type 216 ssk $700M per ship 8.4 billion (replaces Victoria)#
    1 Juan Carlos LHA (options on 2 more) 1.0 billion**
    12 P-8 patrol aircraft $100M per aircraft 1.2billion (replaces cp-140& cp-140a)*
    6 CPF’s retained (for reserve use and training)
    28 CH-148 Cyclones (shore use)
    40 CH-159 wildcat 38.4M per helicopter 1.5 billion (ship use)#
    30 CV-22 $69.6M per aircraft 2 billion (for use on LHA)#
    18 CAH-1Z $31M per aircraft .58 billion(for use on LHA)#
    28 CF-35B $200M per A/C 5.6B (for use by fleet air arm on LHA)#
    total cost $33.9 Billion
    * indicates requirement under Canada first defence policy
    **indicates programs already under consideration by RCN
    # indicates beefing up

    this would still be expensive. And I still have my doubts about the F-35B, I would need to investigate if the navy Grippen NG could fly off my LHA choice. I think it would be the only way the RCN could get back into the aircraft carrier community again. we would have to increase the manpower of the navy by almost 2 times. let me know what you think.

  35. Steve permalink
    March 4, 2013 2:17 pm

    The PV85s that the RNZN has acquired are strengthened for Ice conditions so they’d be perfect for patrolling the coast, especially the East Coast/St. Lawrence/Labrador region. Any way you slice it the AOPS is a terrible idea, especially because they’re only a seasonal vessel.

  36. Anonymous permalink
    March 4, 2013 2:10 pm

    While I agree that SSNs are the only significant force projection options for the Arctic, I believe them to be a non-starter for the majority of Canadians. Unfortunately. I think that having some sort of Command vessel like a Mistral Class that can be equally valuable in a humanitarian crises as in a NATO mission would be more in line with the Nations role in the world than a purely offensive weapon like a SSN. not to mention the fact that at a minimum they’d be 4 times more expensive per unit than a SSK.

    I still think that having at the very least the hulls built in South Korea shipyards like the British MARS program is the only way that this program gets anywhere close to the capabilities our Navy needs for the money the government can afford.

  37. Rob permalink
    March 2, 2013 12:42 pm

    With you on the Ice Breakers but not sure of how much they need past a 57mm gun. Perhaps a modular sysem like the Danish use may work. It could be upgraded depending on politcal climate.

    As for the PV85 Otagos I think there may be a better alternative now. Check out a USCG submission for the OPC contract designated the SX151. More stable in heavy sea states and better armed. I’d require the capability to have some anti air and ship defence. For Canada we probably don’t need 20 but more like 12-15 especially if we get 8-10 more Hero class patrol ships.

    Those frigates are probably going to cost more like 800m to 1 billion each.

    I’d personally forgo the frigates for 4 Danish Absalon Command Frigates. We can use these for our visible global presence hunting pirates or providing emergence aide. Things we do that look good on us give us the opportunity to wave the flag.

    For our Nato obligations I’d favour eliminating the surface presence and investing in a platform that can travel independantly around the world eliminating the need for AORs, can patrol 100% of our coast 365 days a year, and provide a valuable asset to NATO missions helping our allies without having to fly our flag off hostile waters. That is the key for the Canadian navy. Of course I’m talking about SSNs. 6 or 7 would do.

    Effective control of the Arctic is what they would provide and that is the only real direct threat to Canada. SSKs do not come close to their capabilties and are too slow to transit across oceans to take part meaningfully in international operations.

  38. SteveB permalink
    March 1, 2013 10:20 pm

    Here goes:

    4 – Armed Heavy Icebreakers @$750m = $3b
    Instead of the AOPS, these vessels could serve year round, but only in the arctic region. Should include: 1 CH-148, 1 76mm, CIWS, possibility for Harpoon and or SAM

    13 – De Zeven Provincien Frigates @532m = $4.316b
    These serve as the SCSC vessels, The “Province Class”

    1 – Mistral BPC @ 530m = $530m
    3 – Wave Knight AOR @ 172m = $516m
    This is the effective replacement of the Protecteur Class AOR

    20 – Otago OPV@ 62.6m = $1.252b
    The Kingston Class coastal defence vessel replacement and significant upgrade

    6 – Gotland Submarines @$365 = $2.19b
    Replacing the Victoria Class SSK

    47 Hull Total Costs = $14.404b or less than 1/2 of current projected costs.

  39. November 28, 2012 12:10 am

    My modified RCN that I have been looking at as of yet, and the kick in the pants is that the RCN could afford it.

    2x- American Class Assault Ships
    6x- KDX-2 destroyers
    12x- Halifax class FFG’s
    8x- Type 26 FFG
    8x- K 130 corvettes
    4x-Windsor class SSK
    6x-Type 214 SSK
    4x-Inflexable SSBN
    2x- Endurance class LPD’s
    18x- Kingston MCM ships

    In this they would need to build 2 CVL, 8 FFG, 8 FSG, 6 SSK, 4 SSBN, 2 LPD, 6 MCM in this they can do these ships over a 10 year plan. Though they could just buy the SSBN that I suggest with the changing from Exocet to Harpoon missiles since it is French.

  40. glenn permalink
    September 30, 2012 12:36 pm

    Here is my revised navy,
    15 De Zeven Provincien DDG $13B
    26 Meko-200 FFG $6.1B 6 fitted for mine clearing duties instead of helicopters
    7 Enforcer LPD $1.5B
    2 Juan Carlos LHA $1.0B
    24 Type 216 SSK $20B
    8 Arctic patrol vessels PV $3.2B
    6 Pinto AOR $1.4B
    Helo- 28 CH148 Cyclone ASW $1.8B
    28 CH-148B Cyclone Transport $1.8B
    28 CAH- 1Z Cobra $0.6B
    Aircraft- 18 CF-35B $2.0B
    16 CP-8 Posidon $1.6B
    20 CP-99 $1.4B
    Development programs
    light carrier planned 3 ( able to carry 24 sea Grippons, 2 helo, 2, E-2D) 2030 time frame
    $2B development (possible joint venture with RAN)
    Canadian patrol aircraft (40 aircraft based on C-Series jet with tanking ability) 2020 $1.5B
    development (as above)
    Total cost $40.9 Billion
    work share DDG 10 built in Canada, 5 built in Netherlands (5 per year, 3yr completion)
    FFG 26 built in Canada (6 pre year, 4.5 yr completion)
    LPD 4 built in Canada, 3 built in Netherlands (3 per year,2.5 yr completion)
    LHA 1 built in Canada, 1 built in Spain (1 per year, 2 yr completion)
    AOR 3 Built in Canada, 3 built in Spain (3 per year, 2yr completion)
    PV 8 built in Canada (4 per year, 2 year completion)
    SSK 14 built in Canada, 10 built in Germany (4 per year, 6 yr completion)
    CV development final design 2025 production 2025-2030 1 ship per year
    more capability and opportunity to develop Canadian ship building, no nuclear subs for less political hassle at home, $4.8 Billion less than

  41. Matt permalink
    September 7, 2012 8:42 pm

    I Agree with most of the Navy’s spending so far, everything except the AOPS project i would cancel that right away and buy 3-4 real year round ice breakers.

    Call the Germans and have them change the design specs of the Type 216 so It could go 4 weeks without snorkelling as well as increasing the endurance of the sub to around 90 or 100 Days, and most importantly make it Ice Cap ready whatever that takes (i.e: strengthening the mast, maybe making the sub bigger) and order a hole pile of them something like 12-14 would be great. If cost is an issue impose a one year tax on Foreign owned companies with Oil Sands operations, should create lots of money for the navy even though it would never happen.

  42. Rob permalink
    August 27, 2012 3:43 pm

    Hi Glenn, i believe the Absalon class can lift 200 troops. Again, I’d hate to see funds go into duplicating what our air force already can. Save the funds for nuke subs.

  43. Glenn permalink
    August 15, 2012 11:50 pm

    We are going to need a healthy size affordable but capable fleet. I can see how sea lift of some kind will be needed. We cancelled a ship class in 63 called the general purpose Frigate it could carry 200 light infantry a helicopter, shore bombardment and air defence capability and ASW ability to boot. I have been working on a less expensive version of of my original plan. I’ll post it in the next few days.

  44. Rob permalink
    August 2, 2012 8:55 pm

    One more thing, a rant really. Amphibious ships would be a big mistake for Canada to get involved with. I understand the mind-set that moves the Navy into constant capability expansion but it has to stop. The Absalon support ship is a master-of-none ship and we have to be careful not to let our navy become so with “capability creep”. The same creep killed the JSS since they had so many expectations for it the costs increased to the point where it was cancelled.

    We have a great lift capability with our new C-177s and C-130s. They can fly back and forth across the ocean(s) brining many more troops and equipment in the same time an Amphibious landing ship could make the trip once. And what are the odds their destination is a coastal one? Landing sites everywhere in the world. Again, it is important to avoid duplicating roles as the US Armed Forces do. We don’t have the budget for it. We have transportation capability via the air force.

    The US would not likely sell us Virginia class SSNs and the Seawolf class is no longer in production. The best we could hope for are used some LA class and that would be a monumental mistake as it is an aging hull needing refuelling and we just got taught a lesson in used subs.

    The Barracuda class is the best of the at-market subs because they are more affordable without sacrificing Canadian capabilities (vls as pointed out below) and they have a crew of only 60. A tea kettle nuclear battery would be even quieter (and slower) but the Barracuda is ready to go.

    We could always duel crew them too like the US does with its SSBNs if we had to. The Canadian version could be built with larger access hatches like the US SSBNs so components requiring maintenance could be swapped out in port instead of being tied up in port for routine maintenance.

    A few PV 85s could be assigned to pirate patrol and to keep a surface presence. They would be every bit as effective as the several billion dollar frigates and destroyers most navies are sending. A Berlin Class tender could be procured for foreign PV85 deployment.

  45. Rob permalink
    August 2, 2012 7:55 pm

    I have been looking into this for some time and believe that the CCG is and should be headed towards a more constabulary role. We should cancel the slush breaking APS and build 3 heavy ice breakers armed with a 57mm cannon for legitimacy.

    Instead of building a mini us navy and entertaining the notion that we can properly patrol our coasts and power project we should focus on doing one thing very well – defend North America, and that has the flexibility of being used internationally. Build 12 Barracuda class SSNs or something of similar size with a tea kettle nuclear battery would be perfect. All the modern naval battles teach us SSNs rule the seas and with our Northern issues, only a SSN fleet will buy us any credibility. Remember, a nation that relies on others for protection is, by definition, a protectorate.

    Strengthen our coast guard by changing their mandate and giving them 17-20 STX 85s (to replace the aging ccg patrol ships and 12 Kingston class) with a bigger gun (40-57mm) and like Canadianfisher said, capabilities for sonar and missile add-ons. They would be tasked with boarding and other constabulary roles inside our EEC zone as well as S&R and their other current roles

    I’d also give the CCG 8-12 more Hero class vessels to give the Great Lakes, our seaway and coasts proper patrols.

    A single naval platform is sure to reduce costs and the Barracuda or a tea kettle submarines would / could use civilian grade fuel reducing their maintenance costs. Using new drone technology with our SSN fleet, we could become experts at RSI and special forces ops. If a conventional war is on the horizon again submarines would be the major player. SSNs are the best platform to defend Canada and best best platform to strike back.

  46. Canadianfisher permalink
    June 26, 2012 12:21 am

    Beaumont-sur-mer brings up some interesting notions although he is promoting the CCG more than the Navy – I agree instead of one heavy icebreaker for the CCG there should be 2 or 3 for the Arctic patrol. To save money and time look into purchasing two or three Virginia class SSNs from the American or purchase the Seawolf class. Keep the VIctoria class subs on the West and East Coast as patrol vessels off the coast and training tools. Tomahawk missiles are not required have the torpedoes and harpoons which will give a lot of capability to these subs..
    The Absalon class to me are good patrol vessels that are really not good at anything – yes you can have missiles, mission packs – but they are not designed for anything and are not big enough to be effective landing ships. So the Frigates are going to be around for 15 more years or more so you have the ASW capability covered, would this not be the best time to start the development of a new ship concept – and by the time the frigates are ready to be replaced the kinks are worked out. 4 AAW and control ships – this would be the development and hull type for an ASW variant and General Purpose ship. What about instead of that we develop a system where a change in a couple of components or modules modifies the ships role, similar to Stanflex – more options. Ability to change the missile systems, gun system, command and control system, removal or addition of the towed array, radar systems. This would allow a decreased number of ships that would be required so only 4 or 6 additional ships. Then 3 or 4 Wave Knight or similar AOR ships, these less expensive options would allow a greater number of patrol vessels. PV 85 or similar with a helicopter, gun and the option for a missile system or towed array, the CCG is receiving 9 Hero class patrol vessels – smaller for different missions. Leave the Arctic patrol to the experts in the CCG and the offshore patrol to the Navy.
    2 or 3 Landing ships – I know the preference for many is the Mistral or similar – cost would be a prohibitive factor so a smaller, more purpose built something like a Bay class LPD @ 288 M a piece much more affordable and could fulfill many roles so 2 or 3 would be perfect.
    Costs – $6B approx. as money is an issue.
    You have the Arctic capability with the 3 Heavy Arctic Icebreakers and SSNs.
    Landing ships and AORs give you a Task Group ability and the ability to support troops ashore with command ability, emergency and disaster relief.
    The new ship program would allow Canada to meet our requirements in regards to NATO squadrons and in other parts of the world.
    There would only be 7 hull types of ships in the Navy so costs in regards to parts and skill would be lessened and some money savings could be realized.

  47. beaumont sur mer permalink
    June 25, 2012 6:17 pm

    Submarines are all the CN needs to defend Canada and North America. 3-4 nukes – Baracudas from France are best as they are about 1 billion cheaper than US or Brit subs. Canadian subs don’t need to be able to fire all those vertical missiles, just patrol the Arctic and perform intel (RSI) during an international mission. They all can drop off commando units via mini-subs.
    SSKs like the HDW 214 are better than 212 as they dive deeper and have longer range. The 216 may have massive battery banks and could possibly patrol the Arctic but is still only concept. Could use 6-8 for East and West coast.
    The Absalon Support Frigate is the best surface ship for overseas duty, 6-8 would be useful.
    Get 10-12 PV85s for patrol, arm them, and give them them to the CCG for East and West coast patrol.
    The Absalons replace the need for JSS
    Lose the foolish notion of an APS that can’t patrol the Arctic. Build 2 or 3 more polar class ships for CCG.
    Sub power is sea power in 21st century. Surface ships project power in peace time but make for rather expensive targets in a war.

  48. Magnus B permalink
    June 25, 2012 4:54 pm

    I think that the Royal Canadian Navy should evolve into a multi-dimensional force more relevant to existing domestic and global commitments. In that respect, it should project itself to its best ability in various levels. For instance patroling the sealanes as a multi-national force against piracy, as well as protecting our own coastlines and arctic from incursions by foreign powers, terrorism and criminal threats. The navy should also be provided with the right vessels to participate in any humanitarian emergencies that should occur. For much of these sorts of operations, you do not a fleet of large, expensive frigates designed and equiped to fight the cold war. My idea of an ideal navy built within the typical budget and manning constraints of the day, would be as follows.

    6- Multi-purpose destroyers, or large frigates designed without compromise to fulfill our overseas roles and to protect other Canadian naval assests. These would be bases on ships of the Arleigh Burke class, or the Spanish type 105. These vessels could be built in Canadian yards using tried and proven designs.

    2- Large amphibious landing vessels of the Mistral or San Antonio type. Both would have different advantages, but could basically do the same job.

    3- Replentishment ships. More than likely of the Berlin class, or Wave Ruler type.

    6- Submarines. 3- AIP equiped subs to be based on the west coast, where under the ice capability would not be as great a concern. Buy new! Either a Gotland or Type 212. Keep three of the Victoria’s only until new boats are built and commissioned.
    3- Nuclear powered subs of either the Astute or Virginia class, to be based on the east coast, where access to arctic waters would be more direct. It might take a major sell job to convince the Canadian public that they would be necessary, but in reality, nuclear powered subs are really the only way to project a convincing deterrent in the arctic. The American’s might not be so receptive to selling their technology, but the Brits, I’m sure would be more than happy to supplement their struggling yards.

    8- Guided missile corvettes. These vessels could embody state of the art design techniques and stealth capabilities not unlike the Visby or Hamina classes. What better to patrol our jagged and confined coastal waterways than with smaller, fast and highly potent ships. They would be far cheaper to operate and more flexible, as opposed to large frigate sized ships, expecially when patrolling the littoral waters along our coasts.

    3- Arctic patrol ships. Build them large and with strengthened hulls allowing them to operate in all but the harshest ice conditions. Without trying to become a variant of the fabled JSS ships, they should have limited supply and replentishment capabilities, plus a large helicopter deck and hanger for patrol and humanitarian assistance.

  49. Canadian Fisher permalink
    June 20, 2012 3:31 pm

    Kristian like some of your ideas – just realize that the ships would have to be built in Canada which limits some of the designs as some companies are not affiliated with a Canadian shipyard.

    I believe the 2.6 billion for the JSS is only a drop until they can get this figured out the cost of these two will eat up most of the money for very little gain. The JSS tankers are great but a more realistic approach is a design similar to the British MARS tankers – that would allow 3 ships and a smarter long term approach.

    The STX Marine Canada designed arctic enhanced patrol vessels are likely with a total number of 6-8 being built cost approx. $80M apiece with limited warfare capability – so $640M with these giving us limited capability in the Arctic. 15 – surface vessels to replace the existing fleet – designed in and built in Canada means cost overruns and labour problems so if the cost is $500 M per ship I would add a 50% overrun and delay costs to that number. We will get 15 for roughly $12 or 13 B with 4 or 5 being a more capable version as a AAW and Command and Control system. The rest of the budget is going to be split with the Coast Guard so not much will be left for anything else ie. Amphibious warfare, Inshore patrol vessels, subs.

  50. Kristian permalink
    May 11, 2012 3:42 am

    With the 35-36 billion for NSBP spilt into 4 grouping is what an under funded navy operating ship that are in some case are over 40 years old needs badly.

    The JSS has 2.9 billion set a side a 35000 ton of the Berlin class AOR or Canadized MARS or even a Lewis and Clark would be fanasitic replacement of Protectuer class that are near 45 years in age. If 3 of these could be produced at 600 million it would leave 1.1 billion for a LPD or for cost over runs.

    The Combat portion of the NSBP has 25 -26 billion to it.

    The Valour MEKO modifed for work in the Arctic to be the Arctic Partrol Ship at 500 million a copy with 6 being built. With the Canadian version being equiped with a 57mm main gun, a Mark 48 VLS of 32 quad-pack ESSM harpoon and 2 twin torpedo launchers.

    Thus leaving 22 billion for 15 ships of the surface combat ship or the heart of project.

    Seeing the mistakes made by the type 45 with developing your own radar, missle and hull design are error that I hope don’t get made with this version of the project. With that said very thing I have seen the De Zeven Provincien even built in 2002 is still one of the best warships around on a dollar vs capablity basis. With the SEWACO combat system being a good match to the Mark 41 VLS and not having the weight or higher crew need for an AEGIS system

    An updated ship with WR-25 Roll-Royce engines, 127/64 main gun, and 32 ESSM and 32 SM-2 and filling in the last of the 8 cells in 48 cell VLS for Tomhawk use, 2-Quad harpoon launchers, 1 CIWS ,1 Rolling frame missle launcher, and 4 torpedo launcher. With 10 of these ships at a 1 billion a copy it would make up the backbone of Navy taking 10 of the 22 billion. With 5 of a larger command version with 64 cell Mark 41 and with Anti-ballistic missle reach.

    Hope me and my number in term of cost are not out of wack with what can be accompisled.
    Please give me some feed back. If some one would like to talk about the F35 as well I would look forward to it.

  51. Mr. Jasey permalink
    April 23, 2012 1:52 am

    16 Visby Corvettes for coastal patrols
    20 Type 214 and or 216 submarines replacing Victoria class for coastal defence patrols
    6 Virginia class SSN for Arctic patrol / long range operations
    2 JSS (modified Berlin class replenishment ships) maybe some V-22s on board
    4 Sachsen class frigates (2 Pacific, 2 Atlantic as command ships and escort for JSS
    UAV recon for Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic (will also replace CP-140 Aurora)
    Halifax frigates can go – we don’t need to be that involved internationally. Our international involvement around the world in the last 10 years has done nothing to stop Russia from beginning to testing our defences cold war style again. Even the allies we are fighting alongside question the legitimacy of our northern boarder.
    The transports are covered by the Sachsens plus SSN and SSK support for any international operations. Some Visbys could even join the task forces if need be.

  52. Alexander permalink
    March 30, 2012 11:07 am

    This should be changed to include the new 30 year, 35 billion dollar ship building program.

  53. Brian B. permalink
    February 8, 2012 3:31 pm

    I completely agree that the present size of the Navy would not be able to support an expanded fleet. That’s the rub: Canada needs a bigger Navy… and Army and Air Force. Needs, wants and gonna gets are at variance. One of the richest nations on earth with a growing population. Oh well. Dare to dream.

  54. Canadian Fisher permalink
    January 30, 2012 7:18 pm

    I am unsure the love affair with the Aircraft carrier as the size of the Canadian Navy puts the manning requirements as a huge problem. The government has some issues to sort out in regards to what they require of the Navy and the Arctic sovereignty they want to exercise. So on that note and maybe going somewhat over budget but not hugely and staying within manning levels that the Navy can meet.


    12 CPF patrol frigates keep as the main backbone of the force, money already allocated for the upgrade and requirement of 225 sailors which could be reduced for patrol work around Canadian waters usually only 9 or 10 at full strength. Keep the 5 West Coast and 5 East Coast with a component of two available to the Arctic for open water patrol to augment the Arctic patrol vessels.

    4 – Ivar Huitfeldt AAW – 165 sailors a manageable number for a capable ship and as one will always be working up.2 West and 2 East Coast – give us proper capability cost – ~$332M each – Total – $1.328B.

    I know that this should be a spot for a small carrier but financially wise there is no way to do this without a lot more money. So lets move the next thing we need – so lets do the next important thing to replace the AOR.

    4 – Wave Class Tankers – $172M so total – $688M if we can do it so we will go 2 – West Coast and 2 – East Coast. 100 crew ea

    6 – Endurance LSTs – 3 – West Coast 3 – East Coast – $142M – Total: $852M for humanitarian aid, rescue missions and to move CBG if required. 65 crew

    4 – Gotland – AIP submarines – $190M – total $760M – 4 for East Coast to patrol Arctic and patrol missions – each coast will have their own fleet with the 4 – Victoria class moving to the West Coast so 4 each coast for patrol and training. 24 crew

    12 – Kingston Class vessels for mine hunting and patrol same disposition that are already in place. Reserve based not total fleet call.

    6 – Knud Rassmussen class or similar – $50M so total: $300M with all 4 based on East Coast for Arctic patrol and 2 – West Coast for Arctic patrol as well. 43 for each ship.

    So 52 ships – so if we go for an 90% in service full manned the total crew requirement would be around 3800 crew excluding reserve crews in the Kingston class. This gives us the opportunity to patrol in the Arctic with the Arctic patrol vessels and the AIP submarines as well during the summer months with a CPF or 2 for a stronger showing on both coasts.

    Task Force to move a Battle Group on each coast with Command and Control with 2 or 3 LST to move the battle group with the AAW and two or three CPFs with a tanker and a submarine if required this would be a capable group. There are other possibilities with two AAW ships and more CPFs depending on the area that they are going into.

    Total money $3.928B over by a Billion gives us a lot more capability and we can meet the Arctic patrol capabilities that we require. My thoughts.

  55. Brian B. permalink
    January 30, 2012 11:43 am

    Here is my updated hat in the ring as Canada strives to expand its economic potential, realize its place as an active participant in world affairs and the growing potential for future threat in non-traditional operational theatres:

    1. 3 Fleet medium strategic projection ships (Juan Carlos – like) with:
    a. 16 JSF;
    b. 16 H-92 Cyclones (ASW, Utility/troop tpt);
    c. 2 Chinooks;
    d. 6 armed escort helos (Cobra-like);
    e. 4 UAVs:
    f. 2 X med landing craft;
    g. Landing force of 6-800 tps with tanks, LAV III and wheeled utility vehs; and
    h. self-defence capability
    Note: One configured as a fleet medium strike aircraft carrier (24-32 ac), one configured as an amphibious landing support carrier & the third in reduced readiness to enable keeping two ships up at any given time and a suge capability.

    2. 18 destroyers/frigates:
    a. 6 optimized for AAW/command & control;
    b. 12 General purpose (GP);
    c. appropriate missile suites incl land attack;
    d. 57mm guns with at least 4 of the GP ships with a 5 inch gun to support land operations;
    e. ability to house/operate 2 x med helo (ASW/utility);
    f. ability to house/launch a landing force of 40 tps (GP ships);and
    g. UAV.

    3. 6-8 corvette-type ships for coastal defence:
    a. fast;
    b. guns & torpedoes; and
    c. able to land/launch med helo (hanger?).

    4. 6-8 Mine warfare vessels.

    5. 4-6 Arctic patrol ships.

    6. 6 air-independant submarines.

    7. 4 Fleet replishment-support ships.

    8. 24 long range maritime patrol aircraft.

    9. 50-70 medium helos (ASW, transport/utility.

    10. The Chinooks and escort helos tasked from those aircraft in support of land force operations.

  56. January 27, 2012 9:32 am

    Imagine what we could do with the f35 costs.

  57. January 26, 2012 8:36 pm

    With the 3 billion I would give everyone in parliament and DOD access to wikipedia.

  58. glenn permalink
    January 5, 2012 9:34 pm

    15 type 45 destroyers $14.7Billion replaces 3 DDG280’s and 12 CPF’s(CPF’s in storage)
    4 Juan Carlos $2 Billion 2 configured as aircraft carriers 60 f-35B’s (cost who knows Lockheed doesn’t )
    2 San Antonio LHD $3.6 billion
    24 Milgem corvettes $6.2 billion replaces Kinston class
    8 Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels $500 Million
    8 Virginia ssn(block 4) $10.4 Billion Scrap all 4 Victorias
    8 Type 214 ssk $4 billion
    2 type 702 berlin AOR $809million
    6 Pinto AOR $1.4 billion
    2 Lewis and Clark T-AKE $1.1 Billion

    total cost $44.8 Billiion total announced $35.0 Billion diffrence $9.8 Billion
    Cost does not include facility upgrades and training.
    San Antonio class ships and Virginia ssn’s should be available due to budget cutbacks in US defence spending. Especially given that the USN has committed to 2 SSn’s per year, Canada should be able to pickup some hulls to maintain jobs in us shipyards. The remainder Hulls can be built in Canada

  59. Brian B. permalink
    October 28, 2011 1:49 pm

    The latest…. nuclear submarines!…. Interesting but realistic? We’d need 6. Anybody got some spares? More likely, if we decide to keep a sub-surface capability, use the Victoria subs for target practice & get some air-independant propulsion subs from the Germans. I still pine for those small carriers too.

  60. Brian B. permalink
    September 16, 2011 1:32 pm

    Hello again all. As you may be aware, the Victoria Class subs we got from the Brits are still a pain! Another thing to be aware of is that there historicially exists a healthy and rabid insistence on designing and building our own ships at home. We’ve proven to be good at it but periodicially have to reinvent expertise due to the long time between builds. My opinion is that Canada will build its entire fleet itself less the outside chance we decide to get back in the carrier business or acquire quality submarines.

  61. cptn. SIDD permalink
    September 2, 2011 3:19 pm

    This is my Canadian Navy of the future.

    5x Gotland SSK = 950,000,000
    10 X F-22P Zulfiquar class frigate = 1,750,000,000
    3 X Type 45 destroyer = 3,000,000,000
    2 X Berlin class replenishment ship = 900,000,000
    4 X HMNZS Canterbury multi role vessel = 500,000,000
    4 X KNUD RASMUSSEN = 200,000,000

    TOTAL = 7,300,000,000

  62. Canadian Fisher permalink
    August 15, 2011 5:54 pm

    I love this – great discussions:

    So in keeping with this I will layout the fleet and reasons,

    Submarines: 4 – Victoria – upgrade to include AIP
    4 – Gotland – @$100M ea – $400M

    Destroyers: 3 – Ivar Huitfeldt class AAW- not in your list $332M ea – $996M

    Frigates: Halifax Class already outfitting them will keep them as a useable frigate and defence force. ASW and ASuW as the focal point with defensive AAW.

    Offshore Patrol Vessels: 10 – Knud Rasmussen – $50M ea – $500M. Ice strengthened – mission bays to add more modules that are not included in the price – can use the 76mm guns from the Iroquois class etc. Can even add towed array as a module if that is a requirement in the North – with a flight deck.

    MCDV: 12 – Kingston class – leave 4 on each coast for mine duties and the other 4 as patrol vessels in coastal waters.

    Inshore patrol vessel: 8 – Orca Class vessels – cost $11.3M each already in service.

    Replenishment Ships: 3 – Wave Knight fleet tankers -@$172m ea – $516M.

    Amphibious Ships: 4 – Endurance Class LPD – @$142M ea – $568M – these ships are also capable of multiple mission including Arctic repair ship and helicopter carrier duties, humanitarian aid, command and control with the right modules. Very flexible to meet a number of needs that will be required of them. 350 troops per ship – 2 ships on each coast could move a Canadian Battle group with support. Although the hangar only has room for 2 helicopters the other ships in a Task group would also contribute.

    Ok so I know some will not agree but here we go:

    Canadian Task Force is usually composed of a Tanker, a Destroyer and two frigates with the addition of the LPDs we could see that grow. To a Tanker, Destroyer, 3 Frigates or 4 and 1or 2 LPDs depending on the mission. A sub if that was a requirement or a desire for more protection from submarines.

    So your Blue Water forces would have a tanker on each coast, at least one DDG, four or more FFH, 1 or 2 LPDs. taking into account those going through refit, workups, alongside repair that are unavailable for operations, with this many there should be one ship of each class operating on each coast at all times.

    Force distribution

    East West Arctic* Great Lakes*
    4 – Gotland 4 – Victoria
    2 – DDG 1 – DDG
    6 – FFH 4 – FFH 1 – FFH 1 – FFH
    2 – OPV 2- OPV 4 – OPV
    4 – MCDV(MH) 4 – MCDV(MH) 4 – MCDV(PV)
    4 -IPV 4-ipv
    2 – AO 1 – AO
    2 – LPD 2 – LPD

    Would like to see some more IPV added – arm them with something like M242 Bushmaster as a standard for the MCDV and IPV also on the AO’s and LPDs as secondary armament, already in use by the army.

    The FFH for the Arctic and Great Lakes would be a duty of command and control to provide backup and assistance with helicopter and increased armament. Could also use the LPD with mission modules in that role also the OPVs have mission modules that could change from mission to mission.

  63. Brian B. permalink
    June 17, 2011 9:45 am

    If Canada is fortunate to invest more than the bare minimum, we might get a credible Navy that can fight & deter across the spectrum of conflict as we move forward over the next 20-30 years. Bring back the small carriers!! Of course we need to build up & expand our whole defence structure as our vast natural resources become more in demand in this increasingly unstable world. We want to share and benefit from our riches…. not have them taken from us by anybody!

  64. Kory McDonald permalink
    May 12, 2011 1:48 pm

    Hello, there the Canada’s naval fleet only needs about fifty ships. 16 in the Pacific, 16 in the Atlantic, 5 for Arctic, and another 10 for international cooperation. They need light stuff and her is what I would suggest if I had the power to do so. First of all I would keep the City class frigates, and the Kingston Patrol Vessels that they have right at the moment and keep them in their assigned roles and what I suggest what they get is going to be on a strict budget of what they can rally up from the parliament for such a request. Fleet augmentation and what is needed most of these ships may have to be second hand ships that can be upgraded to serve another generation.

    Aircraft carriers: 2 (I know this may sound stupid, but not what I am suggesting for the ship class. They need two modified Ocean class LPH, so they can use the F-35C Lightning II in a small matter and to as a command ship of the fleets in question. These ships would be used only with a dozen of the fighters, and the same amount of copters)

    Cruisers: none [for one the navy in question is on a strict budget and cannot supply the ships effectively at that size.]

    Destroyers: They have three aging and are going to decommission them with in a 2-year time span.
    In this I would suggest 4 type 42’s (batch 3, since the UK is looking for buyers) or if you are going new build 4 Type 45’s and leave class at this.

    Frigates: Like I have already stated I would keep the City class frigates as they are, and augment the fleet with 6 MEKO A-200 (Valour, South Africa) with replacing their SAM that is in there with either a Sea Sparrow or the Aster 30. This would give them 18 frigates total and at a good price.

    Submarines: They have 4 Upholder class from the UK according to my sources and to be cheap about it. I would suggest 6 Type 212A submarines and with this the fleet would be sufficient to augment their international obligations.

    Patrol class: Augment this force with some missile carrying OPV’s suggestion get 6 Fearless class (Singapore) and arm them with Aster 15 SAM or the Mark 13 Harpoon.

    A new class of AOR is sorely needed, but there is not a one out there that can fit the Canadian’s needs at this time this should be a home brew from them.

  65. Brian B. permalink
    April 13, 2011 12:53 pm

    In my ideal world, the Canadian Forces is actually an integrated and joint operable defence force, seamlessly able to blend capabilities to face threats. With utopian thoughts in mind, the Navy would have:

    1. 2-3 Fleet medium strategic projection ships (Juan Carlos – like) with:
    a. 12-16 JSF;
    b. 8-12 H-92 Cyclones (ASW, Utility/troop tpt);
    c. 2-4 Chinooks;
    d. 6 armed escort helos;
    e. 2-4 UAVs:
    f. 2 X med landing craft;
    g. Landing force of 6-800 tps; and
    h. self-defence capability

    2. 2-3 Expeditionary support ships:
    a. 3-4 H-92 helos;
    b. 2 X med landing craft;
    c. 1 X hwy hovercraft;
    d. Ro-ro capability for armour and sp vehs;
    e. Landing force of 2-300 tps; and
    f. self-defence capability

    3. 18 destroyers/frigates:
    a. 6 optimized for AAW/command & control;
    b. 12 General purpose (GP);
    c. appropriate missile suites;
    d. 57mm guns with at least 4 of the GP ships with a 5 inch gun to support land operations;
    e. ability to house/operate 2 x med helo (ASW/utility);
    f. ability to house/launch a landing force of 40 tps (GP ships);and
    g. UAV.

    4. 6-10 corvette-type ships for coastal defence:
    a. fast;
    b. guns & torpedoes; and
    c. able to land/launch med helo (hanger?).

    5. 6-8 Mine warfare vessels.

    6. 4-6 Arctic patrol ships.

    7. 6 air-independant submarines.

    8. 4 Fleet replishment-support ships.

    9. 16-24 long range maritime patrol aircraft.

    10. 12-16 medium range maritime patrol aircraft.

    11. 50-70 medium helos (ASW, transport/utility.

    12. The Chinooks and escort helos tasked from those aircraft in support of land force operations.

  66. B.Smitty permalink
    May 28, 2010 5:49 pm

    Well that would be a good reason. :)

  67. Heretic permalink
    May 28, 2010 9:16 am

    Because the two Protector class ships were launched in 1968 and 1969? Isn’t that like 40+ years ago?

  68. flo permalink
    May 28, 2010 8:39 am

    @ B.Smitty

    If memory serves me correctly both Protecteur are beyond their life expectency.

  69. B.Smitty permalink
    May 27, 2010 11:48 am

    Why would the Canadians want to buy a different AOR when they already have the two Protecteurs? And do they really need more than the two existing ships?

  70. Joe permalink
    May 27, 2010 11:33 am


    Thanks for the info.

    I’m not a professional in the field but a cursory glance around the net pointed in the direction you posted about. I was just hoping what I saw was being overly gloomy and not so accurate.

  71. Heretic permalink
    May 27, 2010 10:56 am

    2x Wave Knight>/b> Fleet Tanker @ $172 million each
    Bay class LSD @ $288 million each
    2x Absalon command frigates @ $269 million each
    2x Knud Rasmussen patrol ship @ $50 million each
    4x Visby corvettes @ $184 million each
    4x A26 submarine @ $190 million each

    = $ 3.054 billion for 16 hulls

    An important function of the Knud Rasmussen, according to its wiki is Ice Breaking. Kinda sorta need that somewhere in the Canadian Royal Navy …

    You want to buy everything in multiples of at least 2 so you can patrol the pacific, arctic and atlantic coasts in rotations.

  72. B.Smitty permalink
    May 27, 2010 9:34 am

    Mike said, “Smitty-C’mon, just for fun

    Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy these little Build Your Own … threads. :)

    Your plan essentially guts the Canadian Navy’s ASW capability. Those OPVs and tankers sure won’t be hunting many subs.

  73. Jed permalink
    May 27, 2010 9:17 am

    Joe – there is no “annual ship building budget” for the Canadian Navy. The current government waxes lyrical about the strategic shipbuilding plan (not finished / released yet) the billions of dollars to be spent (not actually allocated yet) on the following programs:
    1. Armed Ice breakers for the Coast Guard (not designed yet)
    2. Summer Ice capable patrol ships (not designed yet)
    3. The upgrades to the Halifax class
    4. The so called Joint Support Ship project to replace our aging tankers.

    etc etc etc…..

    Lots of political double speak, no money allocated, no ships designed, no ships will be built in the near future, and of course, the Canadian Navy does not have the crews to man them anyway…. :-(

  74. Joe permalink
    May 26, 2010 8:36 pm

    Spend much time here and you can almost have dreams (nightmares) about the USN’s annual ship-building budget figure. Question – what is the Canadian Navy’s annual ship-building budget figure, irrespective of the $3B “FLEX” upgrade?

  75. Scott B. permalink
    May 26, 2010 7:54 pm

    Mike Burleson said : “30 Gotlands @ $100 million each”

    Your source for this $100 million figure for the Gotland is not exactly an accurate one.

    My understanding is that the Swedish Navy wants the A26 submarine to cost no more than the current Gotland class and that they expect a pricetag of something like SEK 1.5 billion per unit, i.e. about $190 million per unit based on current exchange rates. Which means that the current Gotland class costs about $190 million per unit.

    See for instance this article :

    “Men den får inte bli dyrare än Gotland om den ska rymmas i den svenska försvarsbudgeten. Gotland kostar cirka 1,5 miljarder kronor. Konkurrerande u-båtar från andra tillverkare kostar i regel det dubbla.”

    In English (translation is mine, so it may not be 100% accurate) :

    “The A26 submarine should cost no more than the current Gotland-class to fit with the Swedish Defense budget. Each Gotland costs about SEK 1.5 billion. Competing submarine designs on the marketplace typically cost about twice as much.”

    The $400 million benchmark for a 2,000-ton AIP submarine is not completely unreasonable (though I would make it $500+ million to reflect the most recent deals).

  76. Scott B. permalink
    May 26, 2010 7:36 pm

    Mike Burleson said : “Prices would vary, and naturally you would want balance, instead of all Berlin class or Absalons (sorry Scott!).”

    I’m not competent enough with Canadian specific to play the game, but now that we have the new parameters for the US Navy, how about another round of “Build Your Own Navy: US Edition” in the near future ?

    And then you’ll find out how many Absalons I envision in my ~350-ship fleet !!! ;-))

  77. Chuck Hill permalink
    May 26, 2010 5:20 pm

    How about the Spanish “BAM?” Seems like a good buy at 85M euros, about $110M.

    There is a good discussion comparing it, the Holland OPV, and the French Foreal here:

  78. Mike Burleson permalink*
    May 26, 2010 3:53 pm

    Smitty-C’mon, just for fun! And you could even do a high tech expeditionary fleet such as 3xDewitt LPD’s, 5xAbsalon frigates, 5xGotlands, for $2.955 billion USD. That is not a shabby capability though you are still weak in coastal defense.

    The point being to give the politicos no more excuses, whose job is to give us hulls in the water.

    Concerning the Knud Rasmussen, I am a recent fan of this, and I imagine ScottB could tell us how the Danes get it done.

  79. Marcase permalink
    May 26, 2010 2:02 pm

    The Danes don’t have to scatter their entire manufacturing chain over various US states to keep Congress happy.

  80. Hudson permalink
    May 26, 2010 1:24 pm

    The Knud Rasmussen patrol ship is another star from the Danes, an ancient seafaring people who don’t seem to have lost their touch for creating great naval designs over the centuries. If Academy awards were given for ships, the K.R. would win the “Knud” award for sure. It can clearly step up from mere patrol duties to having near-frigate capabilities in a fight.

    $50 mil per copy for a patrol vessel sounds reasonable, but $50mil for a ship this well specified does seem low. I’m in no position to challenge that figure; if it is Danish MoD numbers, so be it.

    So, how do they do it? To say that, “steel is cheap and air is free,” applies to any nation. Is it those Viking genes that lead to so many right decisions and ability to control costs? Maybe Congress should do the Navy and all of us a favor by inviting Danish naval and industrial representatives to appear before Congress to testify.

  81. Marcase permalink
    May 26, 2010 12:33 pm

    Considering Canada needs a Pacific and Atlantic navy, and especially an Arctic patrol capability, my Canadian fleet would comprise;

    8 Gotland SSKs – $800 total – primarily Arctic and overseas patrol.
    6 Knud Rasmussen PBs – $ 300 total – sovereign / Arctic patrol
    – considering the vast Arctic coast and rough weather, the subs and Rasmussen are best for patrol in the north.

    Expeditionary fleet;
    2 Absalon class FF – $538 total – Flagship PACFLT/LANTFLT
    6 Endurance class LSTs – $852 total – multirole support ships, including helo and (fast) landing craft.
    3 Wave class tankers – $516 total – support and aux flag.

    Two expeditionary sqns comprising an Absalon, a Gotland sub, 2-3 Endurance class and a Wave class tanker, on each on each coast.

    With a decent helicopter and landing craft (CB-90 and large LCUs) embarked the 2-3 Endurances could carry a battalion task force if necessary.

    Weaknesses – TBMD and air defense in general (Absalon ESSM only).

  82. B.Smitty permalink
    May 26, 2010 12:25 pm

    So you essentially want to turn the Canadian Navy into a coast guard (with a couple subs)?


  1. Birth Pains of the New Navy « New Wars

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: