$1:
Let’s nail down what we want to do here first.
If we want to project power then we need a stronger navy.
If we want to patrol and defend our coastlines, we need a stronger coast guard.
The coast guard cutters designed to police the waters, the navy operates warships designed to protect the country. 2 very important and different jobs.
Nobody will repect a nation with a well equiped coast guard but they will with a well equiped blue water navy.
$1:
If we want to project power then we need a stronger navy.
If we want to patrol and defend our coastlines, we need a stronger coast guard.
If we want to project power in our own waters we need a strong navy. Post the stats of all coast guard vessels. Even en mass they would be little match for even a few modern frigates. Thats not what they are designed for.
$1:
If we want to protect our coastline, why do we need an aircraft carrier? Do we need a Halifax class armed with sea sparrows and harpoons? That’s a massive amount of overkill to protect against the fish boats, freighters or maybe drug runners we find in our waters.
Odd statement for somebody defending military occupation of a foreign country.
Should the US disarm its navy because the kriegsmarine and japanese navy are gone?
We need multi-purpose helicopter carriers and modern frigates because a strong navy projects a strong message without even saying a word.
$1:
Looking at it, the Kingston class is designed for coastal partol but it could be run by the coast guard just as easy with possibly more efficiency .
Point? That seems to imply the kingston class vessels should be shifted to the coast guard and replaced with more powerful vessels.
Strange post from somebody pro-military.
Canada is an all coast country bordering only a country we will never fight.
A strong navy is the cornerstone of our defence followed closely by the airforce.