National Defence Committee on Dec. 6th, 2011

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Submarines and navies are all about controlling activities and being aware of activities that happen across the entire water column—below the surface, on the surface, and above. NATO certainly requires combat-capable, high-readiness forces to exert that sea control throughout that water column.

The best counter, Madame Gallant, against a submarine is a submarine, and so having submarines capable of detecting, tracking and, if necessary, engaging hostile submarines is a very important capability for NATO.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Are there any advantages to having our diesel Victoria class submarines, over and above, for example, nuclear submarines? How do they play into the full picture?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you.

I've recently come across an assumption that diesel submarines are noisier than nuclear submarines, and are therefore less capable. In fact, the opposite is true. Diesel submarines are actually very quiet, which means they can operate very covertly; detect a nuclear-powered submarine, for example; track it at close range without being counter-detected; and if necessary, engage.

There is a real value in having diesel-powered submarines with the same weapons capability as nuclear powered submarines. There is also value to having them, when necessary, forward-deployed in those strategic choke points—for example, at the Straits of Gibraltar, and at Suez, Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, and Malacca, and the Panama Canal—where pressure can come to bear on international commerce.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

But you said our subs would be patrolling our coasts and wouldn't be deployed outside of our regional waters. So they would still be playing a role in NATO, even though you're not sending them to the Straits of Gibraltar or wherever.

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

I'm sorry, ma'am, if that's what you heard me say. It would be the choice of the Government of Canada, obviously, as to where these submarines would be deployed, but they are absolutely capable of being forward-deployed anywhere around the world.

As an example, the Corner Brook deployed in 2007 or 2008—I think it was 2007—to northern Europe, where she participated in an exercise to help work up the NATO Response Force. This exercise included submarine-on-submarine engagements, and we've done the same with our American allies. What has come out of these training exercises is an affirmation from our allies that the Victoria class submarines are very capable boats.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

Going back to your introductory remarks, you mentioned that with the Swissair 111, the search and rescue effort turned into a major salvage operation. It encompassed eight warships, including a submarine, several fleet auxiliaries, and maritime patrol helicopters. Why did it take so many assets to salvage a downed plane?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

That's a very good question, and I thank you for it.

It wasn't just the navy and the air force; the coast guard and civilian fishing fleets were involved as well. It was an all-points bulletin of sorts, the reason simply being that it was a tragedy of enormous scope. It required a submarine to actually find the black box, which it did. It required a great deal of recovery effort in respecting the remains of those who had perished. It was a major operation that required a deliberate command and control network to be set up, in order to support the necessary flight investigation that took place in Shearwater, across from Halifax.

That's why so many assets were involved. I must say, it was a very challenging and emotional operation for our sailors, one in which lessons were identified with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder, and applied as we've moved forward here.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

What role do the maritime helicopters fill in search and rescue? We know we have the Cormorants through the air force, but do the Sea Kings and their replacements fill a role in search and rescue, as well as being able—

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Yes, ma'am, and I'll be very brief.

In search and rescue, the air force Cormorant helicopters are the primary rescue assets from the air, and the coast guard provides primarily that marine on-water search and rescue capability.

But all Government of Canada ships, especially naval ships, are ready at any time to respond to a search and rescue request with their embarked helicopters. As well, helicopters that are on the shore in Shearwater, or at Pat Bay on the west coast, are available to fly directly at any time. When required, they provide that secondary SAR standby response, in the event that a Cormorant is not available or, perhaps due to crew rest issues, is unavailable to fly. There's a very dynamic play between the Cormorant community and the Sea King community in always ensuring that we have a rotary on-water response.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Alexander.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Admiral, Chief Petty Officer, thank you so much for being with us and for that stimulating presentation and exchange. It's great to be hearing from the senior service, as we talk about readiness—and no offence to the army colleagues on my right.

Your remarks seem to focus quite rightly on three challenges that the navy in particular faces, the home game; the away game, contributing to international security, often in far away places; but also this question of protecting the global commons and the reality of our dependence on intense international trade overseas, to which Canadians like many others in the world are blind when we're not specifically reminded of that dependence.

The one place on Canada's coast where these three issues potentially come together is the Arctic, given that there are unresolved border issues and the potential for rivalries of various kinds. Looking at the naval shipbuilding program that stands before us, the new capability we have, the big one for the navy is the Arctic offshore patrol vessel .

Could you tell us specifically what that will add to our naval readiness posture, and are there other countries that have that kind of vessel, or are developing that kind of vessel?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Alexander.

Yes, there are other countries that have that kind of capability, certainly Norway and Denmark. When you look at what they have in their order of battle, they have that medium-sized, lightly armed but ice-capable and mostly constabulary vessel, which is what the Arctic offshore patrol ship will be. We are talking about a vessel that is not being built or designed to go in harm's way high up the spectrum of operations. In other words, we would not deploy an Arctic offshore patrol ship off the coast of Libya, or off the coast of Syria or Yemen, or wherever the next hot spot might be as this interesting century unfolds. But it certainly is aimed at providing the ability to be present and persistent through the entire navigable season, to be able to navigate to where we need to go, including through that first-year ice; to be able to respond primarily to security and safety kinds of events; and to be there alongside our federal partners in providing support when they are the lead agency, whether it's CBSA, RCMP, Coast Guard, Fisheries, etc.

The Arctic offshore patrol ships are Arctic and offshore. The offshore piece means that we will have an increased ability or more flexibility to patrol off the east and west coasts during those months when the Arctic is not navigable, until such a time the Arctic becomes ice free—if and when it does. This is something I'm very excited about. The AOPS will provide me with the flexibility to have ships available supporting Fisheries and Oceans, for example, on the Grand Banks in February—which, if you're look for a really interesting opportunity for the parliamentary program, is quite an interesting time to be at sea off Newfoundland—or similarly off the west coast.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

My last question is about the away game. You rightly say, and we all agree with you, that there's no way of anticipating with a high degree of fidelity where the next major requirement for naval deployment far from Canada's shores might be. You spoke of a naval arms race in Southeast Asia. Obviously, piracy concerns continue in many parts of the world. And there's drug interdiction as well. Wherever it may be, there is the challenge of sustainment, which new forms of replenishment will help to mitigate but not tackle altogether. We know that other countries are looking at different models of sustainment. Deploying a ship and not having it come back, but having the crew go out and being replaced. With these strategic hubs—which may not involve much of a permanent presence but can be ramped up to support a naval deployment—what sorts of approaches are you taking to that challenge from a readiness perspective, in case the next major engagement we have is highly dependent on the navy operating in a far-flung part of this earth?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you very much, sir.

I would say at the outset that one of the unique and very positive attributes of a country deploying naval capability is that it is self-sustaining. There is no need to flow a lot of infrastructure and supporting capacity into another country to enable that to larger or lesser degrees. The naval task group is a completely independent, self-sustaining capability.

We have deployed for six months repeatedly in the past, and we have become quite good at that. During Operation Apollo from 2001 to 2003, in the wake of 9/11, we sustained a continual presence in the Arabian Gulf as part of that international campaign against terror.

When we do deploy, the key is certainly the underway replenishment ship. It is not just about fuel, but also ammunition and supplies. It's a medical support base. It's a maintenance support base for helicopters. It's a critical enabler to that globally deployed presence.

We also send what we call a forward logistics team. We have a small forward team deployed in the Mediterranean now, from Vancouver. It's a small team that enables spare parts to get through customs. They fly over to make sure the helicopter can fly and the diesel generators get fixed, and those kinds of things, or to get folks home who have a compassionate issue that needs to be addressed.

We do that. That's why the joint support ship, which is one of the key planks of the Canada First defence strategy, and the first of the west coast projects to be built through the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, is such an important one. This will replace the aging Protector and Preserver steam-driven underway replenishment ships, and will sustain that forward deployed presence you speak of.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Before I turn it over for our third round, I have a few questions myself.

Admiral, you were talking about the submarines and some of the advantages we have with the diesel-electric submarines, the Victoria class submarines, over nuclear submarines.

You talked about the ice-breaking capabilities of the Russian, British, and American submarines. Is there any thought at all of developing ice-breaking technology for Canadian submarines, with either the Victoria class submarines we have now or in the future, to provide us with the ability to patrol full time in the Arctic?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you very much for that question. With regard to the Victoria class, no. But as we move forward and, as I mentioned earlier, once we achieve that steady state, and as we look at running this class of submarine to the end of life—which I foresee to be around 2030, based on our current submarine life extension project to see how long we can sustain that capability and at what cost—at the right moment, we will bring forward a submarine replacement program to ensure that we sustain this undersea capability, which is vital to any navy like ours and any modern G-8 nation that wishes to lead internationally.

When that project is initiated, we will look at all emerging technologies, such as air independent propulsion. We will look at whatever technology we can apply to increase the Arctic and ice-vicinity operational capacity of a future submarine. We will also look at the hardening of the hull that is required in an emergency to allow that submarine to surface through the ice and to keep that crew safe.

This is something that I absolutely agree we will be looking hard at in the years to come.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I also appreciated your earlier comments about the distance to deploy to the Arctic being the same as going to the English Channel or going over to Japan from the west coast.

You talked about having a fueling station at Resolute Bay to extend that deployment in the Arctic. Is there a requirement to have a fueling station in the west Arctic Ocean as well, for the capabilities of our Pacific fleet?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

No, sir, I don't think there is. The naval refueling facility will actually be in Nanisivik, and not in Resolute. So it's more in the eastern Arctic. In fact, if you wanted to go across the Arctic through the Northwest Passage to the western Arctic, it would actually be easier to deploy from Halifax. It's a long haul across the northeast Pacific, west of the Aleutians and up around Alaska. As we look at basing in the future, we have to decide where to base our six to eight Arctic patrol ships. My sense is that we're going to want to put more of our capacity on the east coast, and we won't require a huge refueling capacity in the western Arctic.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You mentioned recruitment and how so many prairie boys and gals signed up with the navy over the years. Being a prairie boy, I always figured it was because we like those broad horizons: the seas of grain turn into actual ocean horizons.

You talked about recruitment shortfalls, particularly with submariners. What other technical trades are at such a critical stage within the navy that you need to find replacements to maintain your readiness?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

A couple of years ago, I would have said there were a number of critical trades, but right now the trend is very positive. My folks have shown me how that trend will lead us to healthy trades across the board by 2017-18. But the ones that are still causing me concern as we regrow the force are the marine engineers—the ones who maintain the gas turbine engines and diesel generators and all of the ancillary systems that bring a small town together on a warship. I am also concerned about naval electronics technicians. This is a key tactical trade that requires top-drawer skill sets. These are the folks who maintain and groom our radars, our fire-control systems, our guns and missiles—and they are in short supply at the moment.

My biggest concern, though, is not with any of the sailor trades or technical trades, but with the folks in my classification, the maritime surface classification, or officers. I am short in that department, so we are conducting a comprehensive analysis of the factors at play. We want to find out how to attract more young men and women who wish to lead as officers in the Royal Canadian Navy, and aspire to command men and women at sea. How do I retain and motivate them? That's something I'm really focused on.

The positive side of that story is that with the promise of a completely recapitalized, reconstituted fleet, with the modernization of the Halifax class and the Aurora aircraft, together with the introduction of the Cyclone helicopter, the joint support ship, the Arctic offshore patrol ship, and the Canadian surface combatant, we are going to see a whole new, more capable navy 10 years from now. I think this attraction piece will take care of itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Moore.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going back to my questions on the submarines, particularly the deployment time issue.

If we needed a submarine in the Arctic, in Alert, for example, how much time would it take to get there? I would like to know the time for submarines leaving the east coast and the west coast.

Our submarines are said to be incapable of navigating in the Arctic during a certain period of the year. If a submarine on the west coast in a state of advanced preparation is ordered to deploy to North Africa, how much more time will it take to get there compared to a submarine on the east coast? It must be kept in mind that it will have to go all the way around.

In other words, when a submarine has to go all the way around, by how much is that time increased?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

Thank you, madam.

It takes longer to go into the north from British Columbia than from Nova Scotia. A submarine leaving Halifax will take about five or seven days to reach the Arctic, it could stop over in St. John's, Newfoundland.

It is important to have a submarine anywhere in the Arctic, although probably not in Alert, but rather off Baffin Island, for example. That sends a very strong signal to other countries that might send their submarines to our inshore waters. That's a very important aspect.

The Government of Canada will have a number of tools in the box for applying naval power to best strategic effect anywhere in the world, based on the advice that I provide to the Chief of Defence Staff. I certainly agree with you that we can see, and we'll probably see in the future, opportunities to forward deploy a submarine out of Halifax, perhaps to be forward-staged in the Mediterranean or somewhere in the vicinity of Africa. For example, last year or the year before, the Dutch deployed a submarine in a very effective counter-piracy mission. Similarly, if regional tensions arose in southeast Asia in a way that compelled the Government of Canada to act through a naval presence, then we could forward deploy a submarine via Hawaii or Guam, for example, and operate from there.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Could you state in days the additional time necessary for a submarine leaving British Columbia to go all the way around to Africa, compared to a submarine leaving Halifax? How much extra time will that take?

[VAdm Paul Maddison]

I'm going to consult my team so that I can give you the exact figures in response to your question, madam.