US EUCOM and the Arctic

I have been an absent contributor for a while.  Sadly, this post does not change that, although I am working on a few posts to be up in a few weeks.  In the meantime, this is a brief podcast from an interview of a few weeks back where I discuss US European Command's cooperative efforts in the Arctic.

The views expressed herein are those of the blogger and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Commandant or of the U.S. Coast Guard. Nor should they be construed as official or reflecting the views of the U.S. European Command, or the Department of Defense.

SSNs for Canada - Potentially a Bargain

CBC News is reporting that the Harper Government is at least pondering the idea of cutting their losses with the Victoria class submarines and replacing them with nuclear submarines. The Victoria class submarines have been plagued with problems since being acquired from the UK, and despite being described as the "military bargain of the century" when purchased for $750 million in 1998, they have become anything but.

The submarines are currently all out of service, with HMCS Victoria the soonest to potentially return to service by late next year. The article describes the issues.

One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.

The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others.

It has been in the repair shop ever since, and isn’t expected back in service for at least another two years and $400 million more in repairs and retrofits.

The article goes on:

The other three would remain out of service until at least 2013. One may not be out of the repair shop until 2016.

By that time, the submarines will have cost taxpayers an estimated $3 billion, almost enough to have bought all new subs in the first place.

But the real problem is that by the time the whole fleet is in active service for the first time in 2016, the submarines will already be almost 30 years old with only perhaps 10 years of life left in them.

High-ranking sources tell CBC News the government is actively considering cutting its losses on the dud subs, and mothballing some if not all of them.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is hinting they might be replaced with nuclear submarines that could patrol under the Arctic ice, something the existing diesel-electric subs cannot do.

I'm not sure how the costs break out over a single budget year, but based on the article it sounds like Canada has already spent $1 billion and will spend $2 billion more by 2016, which suggests costs that average around $500 million over the next 4 years. That's a lot of money just to get 10 years out of four SSKs.

If we do the math, basically the Harper government is faced with the very real problem. The repair costs will earn Canada 4 Victoria class SSKs that are already old for an investment cost of at least $75 million annually per submarine, and at the same time India is leasing the significantly more capable and new Russian SSN K-152 Nurpa for $900 million over 10 years - $90 million annually.

Something tells me Rep. Joe Courtney (Conn) could come up with a few ideas here - just saying. What would it cost to refuel and refit a Los Angeles class submarine for a second time to add 15 or so more years to the submarine? In 2005 the cost was slightly over $200 million, so even if we estimate the total refit per submarine to be around $350 million (serious modernization), Canada would only be spending $1.4 billion for four SSNs with a service life of 15 years vs $2 billion for four SSKs with a service life of 10 years. Another big advantage for Canada would be they could use the rest of the money to put their sailors through existing US Navy submarine training schools and use existing US contractor services for upkeep, both of which would allow Canada to save a bunch of money.

The cost difference for the hardware would be $25 million per sub per year for SSNs vs $75 million per sub per year for SSKs. While it is true the operational, maintenance, and personnel costs will be higher for SSNs than it would be for SSKs, there are likely enough cost savings to be gained through existing US infrastructure that it's hard to believe the SSNs would be so much more expensive as to make it a bad deal.

I'm just floating this idea, but really trying to highlight that leasing Los Angeles class SSNs would likely be cost neutral (or perhaps even cost saving) for the Harper government given the big problems Canada is facing with the Victoria class.

I don't know if the US Navy even has four 688s that they would be willing to sell to Canada (although in a time of short term budget cuts impacting the Navy, now is the time to talk about this type of thing). I also don't know if the US and Canada can work out a realistic agreement that would give Canada the ability to utilize US Navy infrastructure for training and other services related to 688s. I do know that going down the road of supporting foreign SSNs would be good for either/both Electric Boat and Newport News, because when one looks at the trends they are having in Australia with their submarine industry - a deal with SSNs with Canada now would go a long way towards getting process and framework for this type of high end military deals in place so when our next very close ally comes along - we have a system and experience in place to support such agreements.

Congratulations to Canada

This is a big deal.

Halifax's Irving Shipbuilding is getting the $25-billion contract to build 21 Canadian combat ships and Vancouver's Seaspan Marine has been awarded an $8-billion contract for seven non-combat vessels, the federal government announced Wednesday afternoon.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said it was a very exciting day for the Royal Canadian Navy because the ships will help them prepare for the challenges of the 21st century.

If you are interested in the ships, check out this interactive gallery. You will notice that Canada significantly upgraded their Coast Guard and government maritime security enforcement as part of this shipbuilding deal.

I really think the US government needs to think seriously about doing the same for the USCG, indeed replacing USCG Cutters is a bigger national need today than replacing any single type of vessel in the US Navy. Buying USCG Cutters isn't as sexy as buying a bunch of high tech, well armed US Navy ships, but the average age of the Cutter force today is over 40 years old. It's a serious problem.

Canada to Buy Mistrals?

I'm stealing GvG's bit, so don't be surprised if he has a more thorough account of this:

Canada has expressed a "strong interest" for the purchase of two vessels of the Manufacturer's DCNS Mistral class, read The Tribune Friday.

DCNS, controlled at 75% state and 25% by Thales, "is currently exploring the shipyards, particularly in Quebec, for industry associations to contract, after the green light Canadian government," wrote the daily.

He said the two ships would be manufactured locally and the group would seek a signature in 2012.

A spokesman declined to DCNS comment.

Good news for the French. Not so long ago the Canadians were giving thought to purchase of a San Antonio class LPD. Guess that's not going to work out. In ten years, at least three important navies could be operating Mistrals. Obviously there are a couple of interesting stories here, the first being the persistence of interest in middle navies for big amphibs, and the second being the ongoing problems created by difficulties in the LPD-17 construction process.

Canadian Service Unification

I'm writing about Canadian defence policy, and have been reading Major General Daniel Gosselin's two-part account of the unification of the Canadian military. Gosselin makes an interesting argument, which I'll boil down to the following (and here I'm quoting directly from the piece I'm writing):

The first concept (the need for a single coherent defence policy) was made relevant by Canada’s idiosyncratic position in the NATO alliance, and by its special relationships with the United States and the United Kingdom. During the 20th century, Canada’s defense policy was tightly tied to military coalitions led by the UK and the US. In World Wars I and II, Canadian forces worked closely with UK, then US military organizations, while in the Cold War period Canada’s commitment to NATO dictated much of its force structure. Hellyer and others expressed concern that the three Canadian services had integrated themselves more fully with their alliance partners than with each other, and that the services required a genuinely Canadian perspective. The three services, fixated on parochial problem solving within the context of alliance commitments, could not contribute to a unified national defense policy.

The second objective (the creation of a Chief of Defence Staff) also responded to concerns about services placing alliance commitments ahead of national strategy. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Canadian civilian leadership had experienced problems managing three disparate defense service staffs, especially as each service attempted to fulfill its alliance commitments. The three services developed standard operating procedures in response to the requirements of operating with coalition partners, rather than to the concern of civilian political leadership. Hellyer intended the development of a new position, with a unified staff, to make the military more responsive to the civilian government than to Canada’s allies.

This is interesting for several reasons. It doesn't surprise me that the independent Canadian services may have been more responsive to alliance commitments than to their own government, given that it was probably difficult to envision any use of force by Canada outside of a coalition operation. This was certainly true after 1945, but I suspect that even prior to World War II the idea of Canada engaging in independent military action against a conventional adversary without coalition support was not considered plausible. However, I hadn't thought about the relationship in precisely the terms that Gosselin laid out. As an institutional fix I'm not sure that unification solves the problem, although that may depend on the precise character of collaboration and alliance commitments.

The argument brings to mind a common conservative critique of the US Department of State, which is that DoS habitually becomes captive to foreign preference rather than US national interest. In terms of US foreign and security policy there are a couple interesting implications. On the one hand, there's the threat that US military organizations, collaborating closely with foreign partners, might experience the kind of drift that was problematic in the Canadian context. On the other hand, wouldn't it be accurate to suggest that the long term US effort to develop military-to-military contacts (and I think you could interpret the Cooperative Maritime Strategy in these terms) are at least in part about creating the reality that the Canadians were worried about, specifically that foreign military orgs might have more interest in collaboration with the US than in the policy of their home governments?

I'm curious, for those with expertise on Canadian defence; is Gosselin's interpretation of the reasoning behind unification novel, or is this a generally accepted explanation?

UFOs, Ballistic Missiles, and Other News Around the World

Heard the one about the UFO seen from NewFoundland? Check out the picture in the story. One might think the Canadians were watching the new French M51. Seems odd to me though. While the time would match up, that is a heck of a distance to get such accurate photography.

In other news, North Korea looks to be preparing for their next ballistic missile launch. Not surprising, they traded artillery fire last night.

Have you noticed Somali piracy has slowed down quite a bit in the new year? It must be coincidence the level of violence inside Somalia has risen considerably during the same time. They are different issues, but there are interesting patterns and relations that can be measured and compared. For example, even after the Monsoon season was over last year, piracy didn't increase immediately and very few contact incidents were reported at sea. At the same time, the level of violence in Somalia was very high. It is a repeating pattern worth observing.

Singapore has taken over command of CTF-151.

Tonight is the State of the Union. The Nation is still fighting 2 wars in Asia and has this enormous humanitarian operation underway in Haiti, all of which are heavily reliant on the work of our nations Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Guardians. It is very telling the only defense related issue leaked so far regarding the State of the Union is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The Obama administration is more like the Bush Jr. administration than the Clinton, Bush Sr., or Reagan administrations in my opinion, and it is easy to highlight why. Political issues are emphasized with more importance than the serious issues that are directly influencing the country.

Canada Expected to Arrive in Haiti Today - Updated

The Canadians have two ships arriving to Haiti today. Noteworthy, one of the ships is going to Jacmel. There is a small airport at Jacmel. Worth a look at the map. I wonder if any Marines will land down there?

Update: Lots of activity observed via twitter offshore at Leogane, Haiti. May be where 22 MEU is coming ashore. If so, check out the WFP assessment map here based on local collection.There is a UN base in Leogane, so it makes more sense. I had previously speculated the Marines would come ashore at Carrefore.

Makes sense though. The Canadians intend to connect the road from Jacmel to Leogane, and if work is done on the airstrip down there, one can look at the Google Map to get a feel for how they plan to open lines of communication around the earthquake epicenter.

We'll know more in the morning. For real time updates of Haiti, I still highly recommend Ushahidi. Play with it a bit if at first intimidated or confused, and you'll see why.

Troubling Report on Canadian Navy Operations

This is just ugly, not because the Canadians find themselves unable to conduct meaningful operations due to ambiguity in international law dealing with piracy, but because the Canadians are sending their ships half way around the world without the necessary equipment and training to successfully do their work. From the Toronto Star.

Documents obtained by the Toronto Star show there were problems getting vital equipment and supplies for the frigate, along with fierce internal military squabbles.

Canada and other countries can't detain and prosecute the armed Somali pirates because of a loophole of international law that is now on United Nations Security Council's agenda. Under the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, the Canadians made an impromptu decision to give the Somalis blue NATO backpacks loaded with bottled water as they sent them back to the coast in their pirate boats.

The post-operation report on the NATO-led mission showed the most vital part of the Winnipeg's mission - boarding pirate skiffs to search for and seize weapons and gather intelligence - was perhaps the most disorganized.

A request for replacement handheld radios was refused and evidence-gathering video cameras, which "succumbed to catastrophic failure" upon arrival in the Gulf of Aden, were not replaced because of "significant bureaucratic roadblocks."

Members of the naval boarding party, the rifle-toting team that searches the pirate boats, were denied military-issued boots, hats and uniforms necessary to do their jobs.

It gets worse.

"It cannot be overstated how critical Winnipeg's embarked Sea King was to mission success," he wrote. "The helicopter was integral to every major piracy event that Winnipeg was involved in."

Later in the report, he concludes "it should not be acceptable to jeopardize mission success by reducing flight hours during the Counter-Piracy commitment."

Despite the headaches and disagreements, Baines dubbed the mission an unqualified success, noting in part a level of national and international media interest "that is unprecedented in recent naval operations."

So let me get this straight. The Canadian Navy was forced to operate within a catch and release system for piracy, meaning that instead of arresting pirates who attacked ships, they would given them bottled water and send them back to Somalia. The Canadians suffered from shortages of equipment for their boarding teams, from radios to uniforms to boots to evidence gathering cameras... meaning there was no way they were conducting operations the same way they had trained for operations. Never mind instructions from home telling the Navy not to use the helicopter - the single most important anti-piracy tool available to warships - to scare off pirates.

And at the end of the day the CO is forced to declare the mission an unqualified success? Maybe before the Canadian government sends HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337) to help with terrorism off Yemen, they can make sure the sailors have everything they need for those operations first. Pirates may not shoot back, but terrorists might.

When a country can't get proper equipment to sailors providing maritime security operations, that is a serious problem. MSO is the tip of the spear at sea.

Operation Nanook

The Canadian military has launched Operation Nanook 09, the latest in a series of exercises intended to demonstrate Canada's capacity to manage and defend its northern territories. The prospect of melting polar ice has helped make Canada's arctic frontier politically relevant, as has the possibility of Russian interest in the polar areas. Nanook '08 focused on scenarios that could be safely described as "maritime management," including maritime piracy, disease outbreak, and accidents. Mark at the Torch suggests that the Canadian government should tone down the conventional military aspects of the exercises, as the deployment of troops might indicate a certain insecurity about Canada's territorial claims in the Arctic. With the exception of a few small islands that are contested with Denmark, Canada's sovereignty is not in any serious dispute. Mark argues that keeping the focus on Canada's Coast Guard reaffirms the perception of sovereignty over the increasingly viable waterways that result from melting icecaps.

That all makes sense to me, but I still think that wargaming out a confrontation scenario between the Canadian Navy and the Russian Navy would be a lot of fun...

Deterrence of Piracy, the NATO Way

Fresh off the operations conducted by the Dutch, the Canadian Navy spends 7 full hours chasing down a pirate attack on the 80,000 ton MV Front Ardenne.

Canadian sailors apprehended a band of Somali pirates at gunpoint early Sunday morning after a seven-hour pursuit across the Gulf of Aden, much of it under the cover of night.

HMCS Winnipeg, sailing off the Horn of Africa as part of a NATO-led anti-piracy mission, was escorting a United Nations food shipment when it happened on a skiff carrying seven bandits attempting to hijack the MV Front Ardenne, an 80,000-tonne tanker from Norway.

The Somalis ignored warning shots fired by a Canadian naval helicopter and fled the scene. HMCS Winnipeg, led by Commander Craig Baines, left the food shipment to other NATO vessels and gave chase.

An American ship also joined the pursuit. It was the Canadians who got to the pirates first.

The article goes on to tell the story of the 7 hour pursuit conducted by the Canadian Navy to capture the pirates. Unfortunately, this is NATO.

But after all that, the Somalis were released. The Canadian sailors, like their NATO allies, lack the authority to make arrests in international waters.

Several International Navy's are expending a tremendous amount of energy and expense to fight pirates, just so they can toss some AK-47s and RPGs into the Gulf of Aden because the global political community cannot find a legal system for the worlds oldest crime at sea.

The results of the last few days will only encourage more piracy. Catch and release is not deterrence.

The Other Submarine Incident in the News

Our northern neighbor has a submarine issue of their own making news today. Very interesting.

The Canadian Forces quietly scrambled an investigative team to the High Arctic last August to probe what it considered a "reliable" report of a foreign submarine sighting near the eastern entrance of the Northwest Passage - all the while trying to keep a public-relations lid on the matter, documents show.

The sub sighting occurred kilometres away from the location of a mysterious explosion that had been reported to authorities 10 days earlier and made news across Canada.

Today, the military refuses to discuss what it found last summer after probing the sub incident, citing operational security. Its silence on the possible underwater incursion - of a sort Canada is relatively powerless to detect or stop - stands in stark contrast to the clamour Ottawa makes when NORAD detects and intercepts approaching Russian bombers.

It is a good read in full.

Noteworthy it comes around the same time the Russians are talking up details about their submarine force, and their patrol rates.

The Canadian government is ignoring very serious sovereignty issues regarding their northern seas. Seems to me that with the trends creating more sea for a Northwest Passage trade routes between Asia and Europe in the summertime, the Canadian people are being shortchanged by their government who doesn't seem to have political interest in the thousands of foreign sailors soon to be cruising off their north coast.

In the US, our political leaders would be trying to figure out how to make money, and secure it, from this emerging change to economic pattern as a result of global climate change.

Don't Bail Out Automakers, Invest in Shipbuilding

Canada is discussing an interesting idea for an economic stimulus package, they are directing money directly into shipbuilding programs as part of the package. I'm personally not a big fan of government stimulus packages, they don't work very well normally because bureaucracy gets in the way of building effective packages. The New Deal was a good example. As an often politicized project to stimulate the economy during a depression, depending upon your politics one can find arguments suggesting it was critical to the country overcoming the economic challenges of the time, or it was a failure because it prolonged the depression. Such massive government investment projects are never as simple as the political rhetoric allowed, a more detailed review notes some of it worked, some of it didn't.

What didn't work was investment in the service sector. If you look at spending as a tree, the services sector becomes a stick, output with no tangible product that builds larger networks of economic growth. The New Deal investments in manufacturing on the other hand tell a different story, that tree branches out in a number of ways as a manufacturing facility networks with suppliers, subcontractors, and science to produce products. In many way the manufacturing investments of the new deal led to high production rates and more efficiency, was successful in building economic stimulus across several sectors, and ultimately put the US in position to be highly competitive industrially just as WWII arrived. The New Deal sealed the deal for the United States before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

In the spirit of encouraging government to be wise in investment during difficult economic times, the Canadian model is very smart, and it could be that several Senators see that. Emelie Rutherford of Defense Daily has an article titled Bipartisan Group Of Senators Calls For Obama To Boost Shipbuilding Support (subscription only) where eighteen Senators have called for the new administration to support "a robust shipbuilding budget and policies" for military and commercial vessels.

Their letter to Obama seeks support for Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard shipbuilding efforts, and for re-energizing commercial ship construction.

It notes the 400,000 people employed by the U.S. shipbuilding industry, and says "thousands of jobs" would be generated with a "renewed commitment to shipbuilding that has been lacking in the past decade."

The article goes on to note the Senators who signed the letter.

Landrieu and Collins' letter is co-signed by: Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), Joseph Lieberman (I/D-Conn.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), David Vitter (R-La.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

Today, the US Shipbuilding industry is a mess following eight years of Clinton and eight years of Bush, and due to many, many factors is uncompetitive in the commercial market while also suffering from a seasoned (ie. old) workforce lacking young trained professionals. If Barack Obama does not take serious action, the shipbuilding industry in the United States will be mortally crippled for decades. This letter strikes me as a smart way to look at economic stimulus.

How bad is it? You know how there is this big political debate about offshore drilling? There is a dirty little secret, we couldn't produce more oil rigs even if we wanted to, they are building at capacity and growth simply isn't a real option. It seems to me we are probably going to lose the automobile industry regardless of whether the government bails them out or not, that industry is flat out broken beyond repair and all of those companies deserve to go out of business. Sad, but true. Doesn't mean those workers have to go without though, major investments in the Gulf Coast shipyards would revitalize that region and allow workers losing jobs in Michigan to go south and find similar work down there, where some training can not only revitalize a troubled industry but inject some confidence into the manufacturing sector as a whole.

I'd rather invest $35 billion into shipbuilding over the next 4-8 years of the Obama administration fixing that industry to be globally competitive than spending the same amount just to keep the automobile manufacturers in Michigan on life support for another year. The Coast Guard has extremely old ships is stretched thin right now, and could use the investment towards homeland security. The Navy has not retooled since the cold war, and is shrinking at an extraordinary rate.

In a time of global climate change on a planet covered 70% with water, in a time where the world will soon be competing for fresh water, in a time when the worlds population is growing at a huge rate but most people live in the littorals, and as world trade by sea has become the lifeblood of the global economic system it seems to me that investment in the nations maritime sector has never been more important to our long term national interest. The shipbuilding sector could also be the solution to the automobile industry problems as it relates to the workforce soon to face major cuts, after all the nation needs more than just frigates, and the need for ships like new ice breakers is just the tip of the iceberg, pun intended.

Canadian election + more on the PLAN visit to Vladivostok

As a Canadian watching the Canadian election from America, I'm ever thankful that C-SPAN is actually willing to show something other than Obama and McCain in this election season. As the results come in, it looks like the conservatives are having another minority government which will probably last until 2010. That means the country would have 4 elections in 6 years. Just think how all the campaign money could be spent helping ordinary Canadians. It's no wonder that the number of people turning up to vote in this election is probably going to be an all-time low. Interestingly enough, we might see a more pro-American government in power. For years, the reform conservatives (not the old progressive conservatives) generally held the most pro-American positions while the NDP and BQ generally held more anti-American positions. Liberals do the nice balancing act of barking against American government, but quietly following America. The absolute dismal performance of the Liberal party in this election (70 some seats in a 308 seat parliament) almost guarantees that Stephan Dion will get sacked. If Michael Ignatieff gets selected as the leader this time, you will see the most pro-American leading/opposition party combination in the recent Canadian memory. This might not sound like a big deal, but such a government would most likely favour higher military spending and pulling more weight in American led initiatives.

Anyhow, a little bit updates on PLAN, specially the recent visit to the Russian Navy's Pacific Ocean Fleet.
You can find the visit by ESF to Vladivostok here and the article there reads something similar to this article on Itar-Tass.

VLADIVOSTOK, October 14 (Itar-Tass) - A squadron of combatant ships of the naval forces of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China, called here on Tuesday for a visit. The squadron consists of the destroyer "Tai Zhou" and the guided missile frigate "Ma Anshan".

An officer in the information and public relations service of Russia's Pacific Feet (PF) has told Itar-Tass that the naval squadron's four-day visit is made under the flag of Vice-Admiral Xu Hungmeng, Commander of the PLA's East Sea (Sea of Japan) Fleet, who arrived in the main city of the Primorsky Territory for this purpose earlier in the day.

"The present meeting between Russian and Chinese navy men pursues the main aim: to promote a further development of naval cooperation between the navies of our two countries," the PF information service officer pointed out.

The programme for the visit is traditional: the PF Command and the PT administration chief will receive Chinese seamen. The programme also envisages bus tours, basketball competitions, and a number of official functions and informal get-togethers of the seamen of the two countries. Hosts on the Russian side are the large anti-submarine ships Admiral Panteleyev and Admiral Tributs.

This is a fifth call at Vladivostok by a Chinese naval squadron. Last time naval ships of the PLA and PF Marines participated in large-scale bilateral anti-terrorist exercises "Peace Mission-2005" that took place in the area of the Liaodong Peninsula.

I got a few more photos here, interesting to see 525 stuck between all the ships with Top Plate Search radar.



We also have a couple of new photos showing modified Han class submarines out in the sea. We don't get too many photos of 093 class, but it seems 091Gs are getting more action from all the photos. In fact, one of them just came out of a major refit recently.



That's it for now, we will probably see some new stuff on 054A on my next post.

Canada Extends WFP Deployment

Give the Canadian government credit, they expressed interest in leading on the world stage by example, and they follow through with action.

Canada's navy has extended the deployment of a frigate protecting World Food Program aid shipments to Somalia in an effort to stave off pirate attacks that would hinder relief deliveries to the Horn of Africa nation.

The frigate Ville de Quebec will continue to escort food shipments to Somalia until Oct. 23, the Canadian navy said today in a statement. The frigate was due to complete a six-week mission guarding aid ships from pirates on Sept. 27.

The HMCS Ville de Quebec (FFH 332) was originally deployed to participate with SNMG-2, but she has spent almost her entire deployment to date escorting ships for the World Food Program.

Credit the Canadians, they are exactly who they say they are and the Navy's maritime strategy is clearly executing the national security strategy as put forth by the nations leadership. Yep, I was disappointed when the JSS was canceled, but Canada is a small power that adapts to constraints on budget resources. There is a lot to be admire regarding our neighbors to the north.

Canada Leads From the Sea

Canada is responding to the calls for help by the World Food Program and will be sending a frigate to escort food shipments bound for Somalia.

Canada's Defense Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday that the Halifax, Nova Scotia-based HMCS Ville de Quebec frigate will be diverted from a NATO mission in the Mediterranean.

MacKay says the warship will escort U.N. World Food Program vessels traveling into Somali ports. He says Canada has agreed to help Somalia since the country is facing serious food shortages and could run out of food stocks by mid-August.

MacKay says the Ville de Quebec is en route. The frigate will report to the Canadian Forces Task Force in the Arabian Sea until about the end of September.

Just an observation, but has anyone else noticed how under the new Canadian government, Canada seems to consistently step up and do the dirty work in the backward places of the world. Task Force 150 leadership may have just been a matter of timing, but in this case they don't have to do it, and given the pirates are attacking European ships, one would think Europe would do it.

Escorting food shipments isn't sexy, and it costs money. Hopefully Spain and France can come up with a plan and manage the Somalian piracy issue, because the US won't do it, and Canada's Navy isn't big enough to do it longer than short stints and still meet their own national requirements.

This issue would be a great way for the US and China to build partnership. Joint cooperation with Type 022s and US Navy logistics and a touch of European ISR. Just saying...

For those who don't quite understand why the US Navy can't just solve the problem, here is a quick example. Essentially the concentrated area where piracy is happening off Somalia is about the size of Missouri. How many police cruisers do you need in the state of Missouri to stop speeders? That's an analogy of what you need to cover a similar sized area at sea and hunt pirates.

EagleOne has more details on the Canadian activity here, and concludes with a brilliant question.

5th Fleet Focus: Legal Confusion For Piracy is International

Imagine a world where there is an international legal problem there are apparently NOT enough lawyers for. We have a winner!

This is a really good article giving an update on the Canadian naval forces operating in Task Force 150 managing the piracy problem in the Indian Ocean. We particularly like how this article reinforces the reality that in the modern age, fighting piracy is just as complicated politically as it is tactically.

However, what to do with pirates once they are caught remains a thorny issue.

"We are military people, not law-enforcement people," Davidson said. "We are not trained in evidence gathering and the connection between crime and punishment...

"Who is going to try them? Do we hand them over to another nation? Look at all the problems we have had in Canada with capturing Afghans in Afghanistan and handing them over to Afghan authorities. Do Canadians want us to capture pirates off the coast of Somalia and bring them home to Canadian prisons for 20 years and (deal with) all their claims for refugee status in Canada, to say nothing of the cost?"

"We have chased pirates," he said. "If you catch them before the crime (as a helicopter from the Calgary did, scaring them off) that is probably a good circumstance because there probably is no legal basis or obligation to charge them."

If Canadian sailors catch pirates who have seized a ship or are trying to board it, "My plan is to call home and say, 'I have a problem. What would you like me to do about it?' " Davidson said. "You can be sure any solution would involve the political level in our country."

It is never a good thing when the political and legal structure for fighting piracy is less complicated when pirates are dead rather than alive, or it is politically better to not catch pirates than to catch them. We are unaware of the Canadians making any arrests to date. It is dishonest to suggest the US Navy takes Somalian piracy seriously, they see it as background noise to be handled by coalition partners.

Another interesting example of political confusion fighting piracy is Germany, who announced this week they will not be sending a ship to replace FGS Emden (F210) when it leaves the region. Germany's laws prevent their Navy from taking any action against pirates, and believe it or not, the reason is because the German government cannot even find consensus on the issue of maritime piracy!

We intentionally cut out a couple of paragraphs that belong in that above quote. Those paragraphs are extremely relevant, but will be used as part of another discussion.

The Long View Towards the North Pole

Not everyone looking at the energy situation in the world is sitting on their hands waiting for the world to change. The Northern hemisphere needs to sit up and pay attention, because things like this don't get as much analysis as they should in the dynamic political discussions that look to the future.

Russia must be ready to fight for its national interests in the Arctic region, home to vast untouched natural resources, a military official said Tuesday.

"After several countries contested Russia's rights for the resource-rich continental shelf in the Arctic, we have immediately started the revision of our combat training programs for military units that may be deployed in the Arctic in case of a potential conflict," Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov, head the Defense Ministry's combat training board, told the Krasnaya Zvezda, or Red Star, newspaper.

The most common argument is also the most ridiculous one: that the legal frameworks in the UN will protect interests. The UN has dozens of legal frameworks set up to protect African's from warlords, and yet at the end of the day, the guy with the gun has the final say.

Who thinks Russia isn't taking the energy situation seriously? They are a net energy producer, and while they have serious infrastructure issues they also have enormous reserves, and are looking to choke out competitors. If you watch the energy business wires, Gazprom is essentially investing in partnership worldwide, which means Russia is expanding its stake in global energy reserves and production. This appears to be a strategy of global energy presence for Russia. No wonder they talk about a global Navy.

What really troubles us though about Russia's movements towards the Arctic region is that all of our allies with claims in the Arctic regions are downsizing their capabilities to influence that region, much less defend it if necessary. We have covered in detail the retreat from the oceans by the Royal Navy, but more troubling from our perspective is the seemingly uncaring view from Canadians.

Canada is surrounded by three oceans, and yet the lack of investment or even interest by the Liberal Party of Canada in naval power demonstrates a remarkable absence of strategic thinking. How does a political party worried about climate change and melting Arctic ice ignore the Navy and claim strategic vision? While modernization is nice, we keep wondering what the naval forces of Canada and Great Britain will look like in 20 years, and what the naval forces of Russia will look like in comparison. It is noteworthy Russia is investing 25% of its military budget to shipbuilding, while both Canada and Great Britain are having problems funding, much less talking about fielding a replacement fleet for aging warships.

For perspective, at one time it was considered 'rubbish' that the MoD would cut the number of Type 45s from 8 to 6, and look where we are. Makes one wonder what will happen with the Astute class in the future.

The Arctic region represents yet another theater in the 21st century unfolding for the shrinking US Navy to deal with, and it leaves us with two questions.

How effective is the Virginia class under the ice?

Is it time to think about putting Harpoon's on Coast Guard cutters that patrol the arctic region?

Those aren't rhetorical questions, because when it is said and done, the Virginia class and the Coast Guard are probably going to be left to deal that region, and both questions may decide the degree of naval capability the US can project to the Arctic in 20 years without significantly downsizing commitments to other regions.

Canada Is a Logical Target

We have been speculating for several months now internally that if the election in the US created a serious political debate about energy, that something would happen to change the topic back to terrorism. The news this morning could be related. UPI reporting, but ABC news is the source.

U.S. and Canadian intelligence agencies say there's mounting evidence Hezbollah is planning attacks on Jewish targets outside the Middle East.

ABC quotes intelligence officials as saying Hezbollah, backed by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, has activated sleeper cells in Canada and is seeking revenge for the February assassination of Imad Mugniyah, who died in a Damascus, Syria, car bombing. Israel has denied involvement in the bombing but Hezbollah blames the Jewish state.

The article goes on to name Canada at the top of the list of places where an attack could happen.

Who provides the most oil to the United States? Canadians are pretty smart people, so they probably recognize they are excellent targets of opportunity from asymmetrical forces who don't like the US.

Hezbollah doesn't do anything outside Lebanon without orders from Iran, and the Canadians are an easy target for Iran to jab at the US and Israel with. Canada isn't in Europe, and in the eyes of Iran the US is weak. Canada is one of the few places a terrorist can hit hard, get significant attention in the US, potentially impact the US economically, and still have reasonable expectations of very little blow back.

Somalia Pirates Strike Again... and Again

The piracy problems off the coast of Somalia and Yemen continue, with two more ships hijacked on Wednesday.

Two cargo ships have been hijacked in the Gulf of Aden between Yemen and Somalia, a Kenyan maritime official said Thursday.

"The ill-fated vessels under captivity are MV Lehmann and MV Arean," said Andrew Mwangura of the Kenyan Seafarers Association.

The ships were taken Wednesday in roughly the same area where the Dutch-owned MV Amiya Scan was hijacked Sunday, he said. Mwangura did not know who owned the ships and had no more details on the hijackings.

The map above is from the ICC, who tracks piracy incidents worldwide. Yellow represents attacks and red represents a successful hijacking. Canadian naval forces have moved into that region over the last week and will be assuming command of CTF-150 in those waters in June. Interesting timing, because that may be around the same time the UN finally passes a resolution regarding rules for responding to piracy.

We think it is very likely that Canada will be leading any UN approved worldwide Naval Coalition against African Piracy in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea before the end of the summer. The scenario that has unfolded here aligns very well with the role Prime Minister Stephen Harper has talked about in regards to Canada's foreign policy strategy, and I doubt his opposition even saw it coming. Just goes to show, coalition military approaches makes for interesting scenarios. Considering how much oil Canada sells to China, maybe they can get the PLAN to contribute a ship. You never know...

Observing the Canada First Defense Strategy

It isn't often we observe politicians use the word strategy correctly and in accurate context, but we admit to being impressed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper today. The Tory's won the election with promises of improving the condition of the military, and it is going to take someone a lot of work (and probably a healthy dose of political bias) to criticize what was outlined today in what is being called the Canada First Defense Strategy. We observe the strategy as described as having a rare combination of relevance to our time and well balanced risk assessment. Most importantly, Canada starts with its most important strength, its people.

The strategy will expand the Forces to 100,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen and replace aging equipment with a fleet of new warships, aircraft and armoured vehicles. Troop strength will include 70,000 regular forces, up from 65,000, and reserve numbers of 30,000, up from 24,000...

With the military facing the same problems as some large civilian employers, namely an aging workforce, Harper said the top priority will be to attract new people to the Canadian Forces.

By establishing a predictable funding model for long term investment, the Canadians appear to be aiming straight, rather than high or low, regarding expectations for the force. The priorities as laid out include a focus on the northern border, increasing readiness, and improving the quality of bases.

The net effect raises the amount of spending for Canada's defense to 2% of the GDP, a raise of .5%. We observe the adjustments to the force structure appear to be driven by an interesting balance. There is little question the bulk of the strategic defense decisions made are driven from operations in Afghanistan, however we also note that Canada will buy the Joint Strike Fighter, although the quantity has been reduced from 80 to 65.

The lesson from Afghanistan appears to be applied with Canada buying 4 C-17s and 17 C-130Js to enable the strategic airlift forces. Also in the plan is to purchase 16 CH-47 Chinooks, including 6 immediately for operations in Afghanistan. For land forces, rather than buying the Stryker or one of the other new wheeled vehicles, Canada has opted to purchase 100 new Leopard Tanks, which is easily explained due to their successful use in Afghanistan.

For Naval forces we are observing a series of strategic decisions that strike to the balance of requirements from the Northern sea territories to power projection forces. It was announced in April Canada will modernize all 12 Halifax class frigates. We also expect to see contracts soon for maintenance and modernization for the Upholder/Victoria-class submarines, most likely a plan for long term sustainment of those submarines as a north sea defense strategy.

However, Canada faces a clear strategic choice for its naval fleet constitution. Canada has three Iroquois class destroyers in service, all three of which are currently 34 years old. While they have been extensively modernized, and are still in capable condition, they are due for retirement soon. Canada faces a choice, either replace the Iroquois class destroyers with a new air defense destroyer, or build an expeditionary force. Recognizing we have entered an expeditionary maritime era, Canada has wisely chosen to build a new expeditionary force.

There are two aspects to the expeditionary force in Canada's long term plans, the Joint Support Ship (JSS) and an amphibious assault ship. We absolutely love the Joint Support Ship concept, clearly a strategic sea basing ship of which no design exists today. We list the official capabilities required.

Underway Support to Naval Task Groups - Underway support is the term used to describe the transfer of liquids and solids between ships at sea. This underway support also includes the operation of helicopters and a second line maintenance capability for helicopters, as well as a task group medical and dental facility;

Sealift - To meet a range of possibilities in an uncertain future security environment, three Joint Support Ships together will be capable of transporting 7,500 lane metres of vehicles and stores. This will provide for the transport of an army battle group. The capability will also include a flexible self load and unload function; and

Afloat Support to Forces Deployed Ashore - This capability will provide a limited joint force headquarters at sea for command and control of forces deployed ashore.

While the JSS is intended to replace the Protecteur class replenishment ships, it is clearly being designed with more capabilities in mind, reminding us of the capabilities found in other replenishment ships like the Berlin class. Capable of performing the functions of an oil and replenishment ship for naval forces, capable of carrying equipment for a full Army battle group, and capable of supporting a full HQ for ground forces projected ashore, the JSS is intended to be a strategic bridge for supporting command operations for all military services while keeping the footprint at sea.

This is a strategic sea basing ship concept. This is an excellent operational requirement worksheet for the JSS (PDF) from last year. The expeditionary vision also includes one amphibious assault ship, with specific design requirements including 777 officers and other ranks, 28,353 square feet vehicle square, 59, 911.48 cubic feet of cargo cube, 4 CH-47 deck landing spots, and 6 LCM 8s as ship to shore connectors. Colonel Gary Harold Rice produced an interesting analysis of the amphibious ship requirements (PDF) for Canada in 2006.

While the Joint Support Ship is limited in its forcible entry options, a design that builds forward deployment of ground forces into the logistics platforms is one we find very interesting. Consider that Canada is currently forward deploying three ships to assume command of TF150 off the Horn of Africa in June. The 3 ship task group, consisting of HMCS Iroquois (DDH 280), HMCS Calgary (FFH 335), and HMCS Protecteur (AOR 509) in the future will obviously look different. If we assume the future force would be two Halifax class frigates and a JSS, the three ship force becomes a 5 helicopter force capable of a number of mission profiles projecting power not only at sea, but with potential for projecting forces to land.

With the equipment of an Army BG onboard a standard 3 ship naval task force, contingency operations for Canada becomes a built in aspect of naval forces deployments in peacetime, and gives Canada a forward deployed, sustained model for Strategic Sea Basing that we believe will be very useful in the expeditionary era of maritime forces.