[sandorski]

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

sandorski sandorski:

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

It's cooperation or the short end of the stick.
Canada's self interest should not squandered pandering to farleftoids and other misguided burghers.

WTF? The US will ask permission, we'll probably grant it, but they'll ask first.

No they wont. In fact nobody will. Some may advise that they are going through what they consider international waters but thats it.
What you going to do?
And with what?

The with what can be arranged. There are a number of things that can be done, just takes some Will.

[sasquatch2]

This largely irrelvant as the Northwest Passage wasn't really open and that climate phase is overwith. Old man winter will guard it for us.

[Ruxpercnd]

Why do you care so much about the NW passage? It is about a million miles away from Canada proper where all the people live.

Basically, it is international waters with rights of passage according to international law and conventions.

Canada should pull in its horns a little.

[sandorski]

Ruxpercnd Ruxpercnd:

Why do you care so much about the NW passage? It is about a million miles away from Canada proper where all the people live.

Basically, it is international waters with rights of passage according to international law and conventions.

Canada should pull in its horns a little.

It is not "International Water".

[Winnipegger]

The Northwest Passage is an internal water way. Sorry, it just is.

We currently have CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft that can air-drop torpedoes. These are primarily for anti-submarine patrols. The current conservative government also announced they will deploy underwater microphones and UAVs to detect submarines. Our CF-18 fighter jets can also air-drop torpedoes, and they have already flown exercises to Resolute. The government's current plans are to build 6 to 8 arctic coastal patrol ships, these are smaller than frigates and will be able to break ice up to 1 metre thick, single year ice only. That's why opposition parties call them "slush breakers". We also discussed on this list using Twin Otter and Single Otter aircraft, especially for anti-smuggling duties. We can use coast guard heavy icebreakers (and we do have a couple) to transport police for anti-smuggling duty. So we do have options.

[Streaker]

A completely unacceptable proposal. In other words, our new government will probably fall for it.

[Ruxpercnd]

Have you guys researched international law rulings on this? I could do it, but I am guessing you are not interested in international law rulings.

I think this is one area where Canada wants to make it's own law.

[Winnipegger]

The Liberal government tried to take the US to court regarding the softwood lumber dispute. We tried to use legal means. It was Stephen Harper and his Conservatives who rattled the sabre.

On 20 September 2006 Stephen Harper spoke before the Economic Club of New York. He said a lot of things and tried to placate the audience. The key paragraph from that long speech:
Office of the Prime Minister: Speech to the Economic Club of New York

$1:

We will defend our sovereignty over all our territory – including over the islands, waterways and resources of the High Arctic – even if that conflicts with American claims.

He also made an election promise to build 3 armed heavy icebreakers. We already have 2 coast guard heavy icebreakers, and 4 intermediate size ones. That election promise has changed to 6 to 8 slush breakers.

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

He also made an election promise to build 3 armed heavy icebreakers. We already have 2 coast guard heavy icebreakers, and 4 intermediate size ones. That election promise has changed to 6 to 8 slush breakers.

Maritime Command successfully argued that full on icebreakers were one trick ponys that didn't have any use beyond the arctic, while the so called "slush breakers" are actually ice capable OPV's that can be fitted with weapons systems similar to what we have on the FFH's and are more versatile in that they can be used outside of the arctic region.

Leave the icebreaking to the Coast Guard. Maritime Command doesn't have deep enough pockets for them to be saddled with three white elephants at a time when they also need new AOR's, an Amphibious carrier, new destroyers, etc.

[ziggy]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

He also made an election promise to build 3 armed heavy icebreakers. We already have 2 coast guard heavy icebreakers, and 4 intermediate size ones. That election promise has changed to 6 to 8 slush breakers.

Maritime Command successfully argued that full on icebreakers were one trick ponys that didn't have any use beyond the arctic, while the so called "slush breakers" are actually ice capable OPV's that can be fitted with weapons systems similar to what we have on the FFH's and are more versatile in that they can be used outside of the arctic region.

Leave the icebreaking to the Coast Guard. Maritime Command doesn't have deep enough pockets for them to be saddled with three white elephants at a time when they also need new AOR's, an Amphibious carrier, new destroyers, etc.

I agree,leave the icebreaking to the people who have been doing it for years.Your not on the Pierre Radison are you?

[Bacardi4206]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

If wishes were horses then beggars could ride.........

Having satellites launched by third parties does not constitute a launching capability....

This sort of thing was settled in 1957, with the cancellation of the Arrow.....

Rofl, really. Yeah I suppose the ability to 'LAUNCH' a satalite into space, is not a LAUNCHING capability . As for the Arrow, what does that got to do with Space Launching? The Avro Arrow was shut down due to lack of funding, and some say the American Government. Still, has nothing to do with what we were just talking about?

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

sandorski sandorski:

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

It's cooperation or the short end of the stick.
Canada's self interest should not squandered pandering to farleftoids and other misguided burghers.

WTF? The US will ask permission, we'll probably grant it, but they'll ask first.

No they wont. In fact nobody will. Some may advise that they are going through what they consider international waters but thats it.
What you going to do?
And with what?

Really, you know this for a fact? US asks permission to enter Canadian territory with any of our borders, even in Niagra Falls. That will all change why? Because it's bigger?

Also what are we going to do? Is that a "Canada can't do anything because there Military isn't great" joke?

Canada spends more time out of wars while others spend more time in wars, during that period that we don't go to war, we don't develope our military. When we go to war, like Afghanistan. Then we start developing it more as you see now. What other military does, expecially the U.S. Military is they constantly develope there military, even when they aren't in a war. Though this is probally one of the reasons it's military is in debt, along with the other reasons. The Canadian Military is capable of having a big army, and good tech. We are capable of being a duplicate version of the American Military. If we wanted, that's how it could be. That's not how Canada is though, we focus more money on our country and the people rather then our Military. Which is starting to change a little since Harper put more money in Military Funding. I suspect that in the future, we will be developing/buying a better navy to man our borders. So if somebody did pass our borders without proper clearance to do so, guess what would happen?

[Winnipegger]

Actually, I concluded we don't need the slush breakers either. We should move the navy port from Nanisivik to Resolute, and deploy some of our CF-18 Hornets out of storage to be based at Resolute. Proceed with the underwater microphones and UAVs. Leave icebreaking to the coast guard.

Build or buy a roll-on/roll-off auto transport capable of carrying our tanks and other army vehicles, and designate that ship "merchant marine" so it can transport commercial cargo (such as new cars) when the military doesn't need it. That would defray costs, but the military would have priority. Commercial customers would get a slight discount because every contract would have a clause that states if the military needs it the ship could stop at the nearest port to off-load the commercial cargo (not dump it) and serve the military requirement. Don't integrate vehicle carrying capability with an AOR, a "do everything" ship would just cost more and not do anything well. Dedicate the AOR to ship replenishment and hospital.

But the slush breakers are useless. They can't patrol the arctic in winter, and aren't useful in the south either. A coastal patrol vessel can't go far from shore in high seas. The Kingston class coastal patrol vessels can only go into deep ocean when weather is calm, our frigates take on deep ocean patrols in bad weather.

And there's the fact the Conservatives broke an election promise. That's political candy for any opposition party.

[sasquatch2]

During WW2, the USCG carryed the can of Greenland prior to Pearl Harbour.
There use of "ice-resistant" vessels was useful but the arrival on the scene of the EASTWIND and SOUTHWIND resolved "The Weather War."
These were the world's first purpose-built ice-breakers and were armed with 5" guns(4X1). They also carried a floatplane but except for landing/boarding parties were unarmed.
Besides interdicting the German efforts to set up and maintain weather stations, on their initial cruise, they succeeded in capuring the only German vessel, US forces captured during the war.
I favour 2 heavies as opposed to the slush-breakers, with an unsophistocated, locally control armament, with basic radar control.
A few years back the Brits, fielded some patrol vessels for the North Sea which met a storm of criticism for their "weak" armament, 1 manually trained, 40mm Bofors. Experience has revealed that the bad guys have a profound respect for that "weak" armament.

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

We should move the navy port from Nanisivik to Resolute, and deploy some of our CF-18 Hornets out of storage to be based at Resolute. Proceed with the underwater microphones and UAVs. Leave icebreaking to the coast guard.

We only had 80 Hornets go through IMP, the Hornets in storage didn't get any of the upgrades and we'd have to send them back to Boeing for nearly a billion dollars worth of updating. Better off waiting for the F-35.

$1:

Build or buy a roll-on/roll-off auto transport capable of carrying our tanks and other army vehicles, and designate that ship "merchant marine" so it can transport commercial cargo (such as new cars) when the military doesn't need it. That would defray costs, but the military would have priority. Commercial customers would get a slight discount because every contract would have a clause that states if the military needs it the ship could stop at the nearest port to off-load the commercial cargo (not dump it) and serve the military requirement. Don't integrate vehicle carrying capability with an AOR, a "do everything" ship would just cost more and not do anything well. Dedicate the AOR to ship replenishment and hospital.

It would be wiser to scratch the JSS and instead build three to four dedicated AOR's, and one or two LHD type vessels like the ones that Australia just ordered. They can carry up to thirty aircraft (including the VSTOL F-35 variant) and have their own well deck for landing craft.



Roll on/Roll off ships are limited in that they need a seaport to offload their cargo. An LHD with an LCAC or LCM's can put troops and equipment onshore anywhere and also provide air support to the troops once they are ashore. And if Australia can afford to buy two of these ships (in addition to their new AEGIS destroyers), Canada which has a much larger economy can certainly afford at least one.

$1:

But the slush breakers are useless. They can't patrol the arctic in winter, and aren't useful in the south either. A coastal patrol vessel can't go far from shore in high seas. The Kingston class coastal patrol vessels can only go into deep ocean when weather is calm, our frigates take on deep ocean patrols in bad weather.

Maritime Command has a requirement for an OPV, right now the Kingstons are filling that role however they are woefully inadequate. They are too slow, underarmed, and the rough atlantic ocean environment is taking a toll on their hulls. The OPV (or slush breakers as you call them) will take over that role and the Kingston fleet will be vastly scaled back or retired.

Using the FFH's for OPV duties (like EEZ patrol) is an inefficent use of resources. The OPV's will free up the frigates for more important tasks.

ziggy ziggy:

I agree,leave the icebreaking to the people who have been doing it for years.Your not on the Pierre Radison are you?

What would make you think I was in the Coast Guard?

[Winnipegger]

An LHD has so much room dedicated to flight deck, well, helicopter hanger, etc. that there's very little room left for tanks or other cargo. And it can't be used at all for commercial transport, so it's very expensive. I don't think Canada will ever get one.

But this thread started talking about the arctic.