[Tyler_1]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But honestly I've been through 3 collisions at sea and it really ruins your day.

You must be excellent at grabbing something quick and hanging on

[Jonny_C]

Looks like a simple sheet metal job to me.

Of course with the navy doing the work it'll probably cost a couple of million.

I wouldn't mind our navy being comprised of 3 or 4 "bluewater ships", a support ship, a large number of smaller coastal vessels, and 3 or 4 fully capable armed icebreakers.

Along with proper coastal air patrol support I think that would do us fine. We haven't projected much international naval presence for 50 years, and we're not likely to do much to change that.

[saturn_656]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Looks like a simple sheet metal job to me.

Of course with the navy doing the work it'll probably cost a couple of million.

I wouldn't mind our navy being comprised of 3 or 4 "bluewater ships", a support ship, a large number of smaller coastal vessels, and 3 or 4 fully capable armed icebreakers.

Along with proper coastal air patrol support I think that would do us fine. We haven't projected much international naval presence for 50 years, and we're not likely to do much to change that.

If we are going to only have 3 or 4 bluewater ships, we might as well as throw in the towel and scrap blue water ops entirely. Don't beat around bush. Either fund a blue water navy or don't.

BTW I think the Navy position is that full on armed icebreakers are a waste of limited fiscal resources. Good for shooting Polar Bears, but WTF else are you going to do with it?

[ShepherdsDog]

Yes coastal defense ships should be increased to keep the wogs out. All those narrow inlets and fjords along the the BC coast would be better policed with them as well. Three or four large(r) ships(with helicopters) on each of the main coasts and an armed ice breaker at each end of the NW passage. An air base at Iqaluit and Inuvik could provide all the air cover and support they need as well.

[Jonny_C]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

If we are going to only have 3 or 4 bluewater ships, we might as well as throw in the towel and scrap blue water ops entirely. Don't beat around bush. Either fund a blue water navy or don't.

If it came down to that kind of choice, I'd say "don't".

$1:

BTW I think the Navy position is that full on armed icebreakers are a waste of limited fiscal resources. Good for shooting Polar Bears, but WTF else are you going to do with it?

As an Arctic nation, with more Arctic coastline than anybody, I would think a strong Arctic capability should be a prime concern, whether the navy likes it or not.

[Unsound]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

As an Arctic nation, with more Arctic coastline than anybody, I would think a strong Arctic capability should be a prime concern, whether the navy likes it or not.

I don't disagree, but I really don't think we have the capability to fund a significant arctic prescence, and do we want to spend massive amounts of money on symbolism?

[Jabberwalker]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

If we are going to only have 3 or 4 bluewater ships, we might as well as throw in the towel and scrap blue water ops entirely. Don't beat around bush. Either fund a blue water navy or don't.

If it came down to that kind of choice, I'd say "don't".

$1:

BTW I think the Navy position is that full on armed icebreakers are a waste of limited fiscal resources. Good for shooting Polar Bears, but WTF else are you going to do with it?

As an Arctic nation, with more Arctic coastline than anybody, I would think a strong Arctic capability should be a prime concern, whether the navy likes it or not.

We had the chance years ago and then the Trafalgar Class Submarine order got cancelled. it was and probably is still the best way to patrol the region. there is no political will at all when it comes to the military in this country. We get the navy that we've paid for.

[Jabberwalker]

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Either people are going to have to pay a lot more in taxes or they're going to have to do their job with less ships and planes.

Once we get to a certain point (hell we may already be there) less ships and less planes means the "job" isn't getting done.

I suppose, but in the 21st century, you don't need to station a ship every few miles along your coastline - drones, satellites, sensor networks and so on can do a lot of the mundane patrol stuff that we used to use ships and planes for.

Personally, I'd like a bigger navy and air force, but with costs being what they are - and most Canadians not wanting to pay higher taxes (or give up social programs instead) - we're not left with much choice really.

I think Canada needs another White Paper on defence to properly define what future roles will be.

Are we going to try and stay a blue water navy, capable of extended operations away from home? Or are we going to just build ships to patrol our coastlines and say forget it when our allies come calling looking for assistance on the other side of the world? Whichever route we choose will influence the size and type of ships we need. The same can be said of the air force. Do we need F-35s to join in future coalition attacks? Or do we just need something to patrol our airspace?

Either way, the days of big peacetime fleets (larger than 20 major ships) in Canada are finished, no matter which party is in office. Still, it could be much worse, we could be like New Zealand, which has paid off all but two frigates.

New Zealand has a population smaller than that of Toronto with a coastline that rivals our Great Lakes shoreline. Also, it is not positioned between two major military powers. Our sea coast literally borders that of Russia.

Anyway, a forty year old ship collided with forty-four year old ship (that is still steam powered!) ... not much of a "fleet", eh? We haven't had a remotely biggish fleet since the early 1960's. It's a good Liberal sort of fleet, now ... seldom seen and never heard. "Large" however does not describe it at all. What we finally ended up with is Wilfred Laurier's original concept of a navy ... a dozen small "cruisers" (which, functionally, describes the Halifax class rather well ... vessels of some power that cruise independently). "Large" fleet lives in the same fantasy world as Svend Robinson's "Attack Helicopters" and, no doubt, some of the public picture them as being "Battle Ships".

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Looks like a simple sheet metal job to me.

Of course with the navy doing the work it'll probably cost a couple of million.

I wouldn't mind our navy being comprised of 3 or 4 "bluewater ships", a support ship, a large number of smaller coastal vessels, and 3 or 4 fully capable armed icebreakers.

Along with proper coastal air patrol support I think that would do us fine. We haven't projected much international naval presence for 50 years, and we're not likely to do much to change that.

If we are going to only have 3 or 4 bluewater ships, we might as well as throw in the towel and scrap blue water ops entirely. Don't beat around bush. Either fund a blue water navy or don't.

BTW I think the Navy position is that full on armed icebreakers are a waste of limited fiscal resources. Good for shooting Polar Bears, but WTF else are you going to do with it?

I agree on the first point and disagree on the second.

If we're going to be a blue water nation then we need at least a dozen or so frigates, destroyers and support ships. Otherwise, we'd be better off focussing on coadtal defence entirely. Splitting tssks with such a small navy means we'd be jack of all trades and master of none.

On the second, I honestly believe that the navy brass feels that patrolling the Arctic is beneath them - unless we're willing to buy them nuke subs to do so. The CF brass often wants to hang out with the other big kids on the block, but forget their allowance is too small to always do so.

[Jabberwalker]

If we're going to be a blue water nation then we need at least a dozen or so frigates, destroyers and support ships.


... on each coast. They are not really connected, and there are still two major theatres of operation in spite of the fall of the Soviet Union ... and we need to be able to operate in both ... in three directions, actually.

[Jabberwalker]

On the second, I honestly believe that the navy brass feels that patrolling the Arctic is beneath them - unless we're willing to buy them nuke subs to do so.

They are VERY AFRAID of ice and rightly so. The last Ice hardened Canadian warship, the Labrador, was decommissioned and never replaced during the Pearson/Trudeau "Let's destroy the Navy-a-thon".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Labrador

We don't have a ship that could withstand the impact of a little growler. They were designed to do other things ... like fulfilling the some of spirit of our treaty obligations.

[bootlegga]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Either way, the days of big peacetime fleets (larger than 20 major ships) in Canada are finished, no matter which party is in office. Still, it could be much worse, we could be like New Zealand, which has paid off all but two frigates.

New Zealand has a population smaller than that of Toronto with a coastline that rivals our Great Lakes shoreline. Also, it is not positioned between two major military powers. Our sea coast literally borders that of Russia.

Anyway, a forty year old ship collided with forty-four year old ship (that is still steam powered!) ... not much of a "fleet", eh? We haven't had a remotely biggish fleet since the early 1960's. It's a good Liberal sort of fleet, now ... seldom seen and never heard. "Large" however does not describe it at all. What we finally ended up with is Wilfred Laurier's original concept of a navy ... a dozen small "cruisers" (which, functionally, describes the Halifax class rather well ... vessels of some power that cruise independently). "Large" fleet lives in the same fantasy world as Svend Robinson's "Attack Helicopters" and, no doubt, some of the public picture them as being "Battle Ships".

Any idea WHO built that peacetime fleet in the 1950s/60s?

The point about NewZealand had nothing to do with their reality compared to ours, but rather that we could wind up going back a tiny peacetime fleet like we did in the interwar years. I certainly wouldn't like it, but without a big scary threat for Canadians to focus on, support for the navy - which Canadians haven't seen in action in some time - could fall.

[Jabberwalker]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Either way, the days of big peacetime fleets (larger than 20 major ships) in Canada are finished, no matter which party is in office. Still, it could be much worse, we could be like New Zealand, which has paid off all but two frigates.

New Zealand has a population smaller than that of Toronto with a coastline that rivals our Great Lakes shoreline. Also, it is not positioned between two major military powers. Our sea coast literally borders that of Russia.

Anyway, a forty year old ship collided with forty-four year old ship (that is still steam powered!) ... not much of a "fleet", eh? We haven't had a remotely biggish fleet since the early 1960's. It's a good Liberal sort of fleet, now ... seldom seen and never heard. "Large" however does not describe it at all. What we finally ended up with is Wilfred Laurier's original concept of a navy ... a dozen small "cruisers" (which, functionally, describes the Halifax class rather well ... vessels of some power that cruise independently). "Large" fleet lives in the same fantasy world as Svend Robinson's "Attack Helicopters" and, no doubt, some of the public picture them as being "Battle Ships".

Any idea WHO built that peacetime fleet in the 1950s/60s?

The point about NewZealand had nothing to do with their reality compared to ours, but rather that we could wind up going back a tiny peacetime fleet like we did in the interwar years. I certainly wouldn't like it, but without a big scary threat for Canadians to focus on, support for the navy - which Canadians haven't seen in action in some time - could fall.

Uncle Louis and his merry band of war veterans from two global conflicts.

New Zealand has far less responsibility in the World than Canada has and yet she punches way above her weight, all of the time. Navies are marvellous (and relatively inexpensive ways, believe it or not) of projecting both hard and soft power around the globe. Do we want to be a power of some sort? Our history is mostly that of being a colonial appendix to France, Britain and the United States. Where should we go with this? Having a modest naval presence around the globe m(we're almost there, now) does not necessarily entail killing people whenever we feel like it.

[bootlegga]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

If we're going to be a blue water nation then we need at least a dozen or so frigates, destroyers and support ships.


... on each coast. They are not really connected, and there are still two major theatres of operation in spite of the fall of the Soviet Union ... and we need to be able to operate in both ... in three directions, actually.

Actually, I would put the bulk of the fleet in the Pacific and leave a far smaller blue water force in the Atlantic to reflect the current geopoitical situation (the rise of China & India). While it's a good idea, it will be a long time - if ever - thst we have a task group dedicated to the North.

[bootlegga]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

On the second, I honestly believe that the navy brass feels that patrolling the Arctic is beneath them - unless we're willing to buy them nuke subs to do so.

They are VERY AFRAID of ice and rightly so. The last Ice hardened Canadian warship, the Labrador, was decommissioned and never replaced during the Pearson/Trudeau "Let's destroy the Navy-a-thon".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Labrador

We don't have a ship that could withstand the impact of a little growler. They were designed to do other things ... like fulfilling the some of spirit of our treaty obligations.

I doubt fear has anything to do with it. Harper offered the navy three heavy, armed icebreakers in 2006 after he was elected. They said thanks, but no thanks. That's where the half-baked AOPV design came from - something that could operate in the Arctic and patrol our coast the rest of the year.