The Annapolis Riddle: Advocacy, Ship Design and the Canadian Navy’s Force Structure Crisis, 1957-1965 by Richard Oliver Mayne A dissertation submitted to the Department of History in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada April, 2008 Copyright © Richard Oliver Mayne, 2008 This degree is dedicated to my wife Tara. ii Abstract The Annapolis Riddle: Advocacy, Ship Design and the Canadian Navy’s Force Structure Crisis, 1957-1965. The General Purpose Frigate was the centrepiece of the Royal Canadian Navy’s fleet planning for over three years, and its cancellation by the newly elected Liberal government in October 1963 set off a divisive and chaotic yearlong debate over what should be built in its place. After exploring numerous options, such as aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, the navy came to the conclusion that its best option was to pursue a guided missile destroyer program that was similar to the General Purpose Frigate. What happened next has confounded a number of modern naval historians. Just as the navy was about to acquire its long sought after guided missile destroyers, a decision was made to build four smaller specialized anti-submarine vessels that would repeat the less sophisticated Annapolis class instead. Although a number of theories have been put forward to explain this decision, the one common factor among these hypotheses is the notion that an egocentric and dominant defence minister named Paul Hellyer forced the Repeat Annapolis upon a reluctant navy that unanimously despised the concept. According to these interpretations, both the Repeat Annapolis and General Purpose Frigate were reflective of a larger debate over whether the navy should have the capability to participate in more versatile operations, such as containing limited wars in the Third World, or maintaining a specialised antisubmarine fleet. Conventional wisdom, therefore, suggest that Hellyer’s selection of the repeat Annapolis was indicative of a minister who gave the navy little choice but to specialize in anti-submarine warfare. This dissertation, however, challenges iii this premise by arguing that the navy was far from united over its force structure - a term used to describe the process through which the navy selects the types of ships it requires to fulfil its current and future roles. Instead, it will show how the birth of the Repeat Annapolis was actually the product of conflicting opinions and struggles from within the navy itself. Understanding the self-inflicted damage resulting from these conflicts is crucial, particularly since the force structure that emerged from this chaotic period (1957 - 1965) would influence the composition of the Canadian navy for the next forty years. iv Acknowledgments There are a great number of people who have my internal thanks because without their assistance this dissertation would never have been completed. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of my advisor Dr. Allan English and co-advisor Dr. Richard Gimblett. Both men are model supervisors who not only gave me the latitude to discover the exact topic that I wanted to explore, but also had the good sense to keep me on track once I began writing. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, namely Dr. Doug Bland, Dr. Jim Pritchard, Dr. Roger Sarty and Dr. Bob Shenton, who all provided excellent advice and suggestions for improvement. It is equally important to thank the department of history (and in particular Yvonne Place - the graduate secretary) as well as Queen’s University itself. Queen’s is a wonderful institution and my time there was a truly rewarding experience. The Directorate of History and Heritage at National Defence Headquarters is another organisation that deserves much credit, the more so because of the friendship and guidance I received from this fine institution. In particular, Dr. Steve Harris, Mr. Mike Whitby, and Dr. Isabel Campbell were not only constant sources of encouragement, but also key figures who helped me with the formation of ideas and concepts. Unfortunately, there are simply too many historians at DHH to thank everyone, but it is important to record that I cherish all the discussions I had with them as well as their advice for both this dissertation as well as my work on Volume III of the Official History of the Royal Canadian Navy. Other DHH staff also played a pivotal role in helping me. As with other projects of mine, Warren Sinclair has yet again proven that he is one of the finest archivists I know. Likewise, Madeleine LaFleur-Lemire, DHH’s Librarian, went well v beyond her normal duties in finding numerous obscure references, books and articles. But it was Andrea Schlecht who truly made things possible through her efforts to declassify the mountain of documents that were required for this dissertation. The kindness, patience and helpfulness at the various archives I visited need similar recognition. I was always treated with the utmost courtesy whether it was the British archives at the Public Records Office (Kew), the Imperial War Museum (London), and the National Maritime Museum (Brass Foundry) or the domestic institutions at the Canadian War Museum and the Library and Archives of Canada. There is, however, one individual at the latter organization that deserves a special word of thanks. Working on a subject that dealt with so many classified sources was never easy, but Danielle Simard and her staff at the Access to Information division at the Library and Archives did an amazing job in clearing the documentation needed for this dissertation. My greatest appreciation, however, is reserved for my family and friends. Jamie Paxton, a fellow PhD candidate at Queens and close friend since my undergraduate days at the University of Toronto, was always willing to listen and offer suggestions on my dissertation (frequently over coffee or beer at the local café or pub). The same was true for Chris Knowlton and a number of others who stuck by me despite the fact that I was often an absent friend while researching and writing. My Mom, Helen, late father, Richard, brother, Michael and sisters Alyson and Susan, always believed in my academic pursuits and provided an unbelievable level of support. While he arrived later in the process, my son Matthew (my pride and joy) was a particularly welcome addition who made the final stretch much more pleasurable. But it is my wife Tara who lived with this PhD on a day to day basis. Tara is one of those special spouses who are willing to make vi any sacrifice to see their partner succeed. She is a wonderful woman who I was extremely fortunate to meet and had the common sense to marry. It is to her that I owe (and dedicate) this degree. vii Table of Contents Dedication ii Abstract iii Acknowledgments v Abbreviations ix Chapter One 1 Introduction Chapter Two 29 “Small, Cheap and Many” Chapter Three 103 “A Cold Hard Look” Chapter Four 175 “A Wasteful Navy Project” Chapter Five 246 The Battle of the Iwo Jimas Chapter Six 311 Victory over the Essex and the “poor man’s solution” Chapter Seven 385 “A poor cousin on a picnic” Chapter Eight 434 Conclusion Bibliography 445 Annex A Comparison of proposed naval force structures, 1961-1964 457 Annex B Comparison of destroyer designs 458 Annex C Illustrations of Various Ships and Aircraft 459 viii Abbreviations AA Anti Aircraft AAW Anti Aircraft Warfare ACDS Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff ACNS (A&W) Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Air and Warfare) ACNS (P) Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Plans) ACLANT Allied Commander Atlantic A/S Anti-submarine ASROC Anti-submarine Rocket ASW Anti-submarine Warfare A/VCNS Acting Vice Chief of the Staff AVM Air Vice Marshal CANAVHED Canadian Naval Headquarters CAS Chief of Air Staff CCSC Chairman Chief of Staff Committee CDC Cabinet Defence Committee CDS Chief of the Defence Staff CF Canadian Forces CFHQ Canadian Forces Headquarters CGS Chief of the General Staff CHSS-2 Canadian Sea King helicopter (American version known as HSS-2) CINCEASTLANT Commander in Chief Eastern Atlantic CLG guided missile cruiser CNP Chief of Naval Personnel CNS Chief of the Naval Staff CNTS Chief of Naval Technical Services COR Chief of Operational Readiness CRMS Close Range Missile System CSC Chief of Staff Committee CUSRPG Canada United States Regional Planning Group CVH Helicopter carrying aircraft carrier CVN Nuclear powered aircraft carrier CVS Escort aircraft carrier DASH Drone Anti-submarine Helicopter [check] D/COR Deputy Chief of Operational Readiness DD Destroyer DDG Guided missile destroyer DDH Helicopter-carrying destroyer DE Destroyer escort DDE Destroyer escort DDP Department of Defence Production DG Air Director General Aircraft DGFD Director General Force Development DGFE Director General Fighting Equipment DG Ships Director General Ships ix DGNS Director General Naval Supply DGSF Director General Support Facilities DHH Directorate of History and Heritage DNFER Director of Naval Fighting Equipment Requirements DNI Director of Naval Intelligence DOD Date of Death DOR Director of Operational Research DM Deputy Minister DNAR Director of Naval Air Requirements DND Department of National defence DNPC Director of Naval Programme Control DNOR Director Naval Operational Requirements DNPO Director of Naval Plans and Operations DNSR Director of Naval Ship Requirements DSDC Director Ship Design and Construction DSNSP Defence Supply Naval Shipbuilding Panel EASTLANT Eastern Atlantic FOAC Flag Officer Atlantic Coast FOPC Flag Officer Pacific Coast FRAM Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization F/Y Fiscal Year GIUK Greenland Iceland United Kingdom GPD General Purpose Destroyer GPF General Purpose Frigate HMCS Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship HMS Her Majesty’s Ship ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile IFF Identification Friend or Foe IRE Improved Restigouche ISL Improved St.