[Jabberwalker]

bootlegga 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.

With a circumpolar waterway at the top of the world that is ice-free for a lot of the time, we need to be at its entrance and exit. The irrelevant sea route that is now in the news is the proposal to build another central American canal through Nicaragua. There is almost a direct straight line between China and Europe through the Canadian and Russian Arctic ... that latter route is already navigable.

[Jabberwalker]

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.

The slush breakers are an off-the-rack Scandinavian design ... just in case we ever have to patrol the Baltic.

[saturn_656]

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.

Armed Polar 8 icebreakers are not a useful military asset. ASW is out of the question, so the ship would be meat for whatever country is tooling around up there in SSN's. With the small calibre guns they would have had marginal ASuW capability. Probably no anti-air other than a Phalanx if they were lucky. Real fearsome military asset eh?

That's why the Navy pushed for the slush breaking OPV design because it actually has utility outside of sea ice. Can free up the frigates for blue water operations.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

Agreed.

$1:

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.

Armed Polar 8's, from a purely military standpoint, are useless in and outside of the Arctic. The small calibre armaments they were to carry would provide marginal ASuW capability, detecting submarines would be extremely difficult and prosecuting them impossible, and the ship would have been near defenceless against air threats.

What is the point of it?

[BRAH]

Was a woman at the helm?

[ShepherdsDog]

AB Wong Wei was at the helm.

[Freakinoldguy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

AB Wong Wei was at the helm.

Laugh all you want but, some poor Senior Naval Officer who did nothing but spend his entire career proving the "Peter Principal" correct is going through hell right now.

He's probably already made the death walk from A Jetty up the Hill to the Admirals
Quarters armed only with his Sword and book of Great Canadian Naval Excuses.


Trust me his God Father will already be preparing a new and improved posting for him where he can go and lick his wounds after of course, his promotion.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

Agreed.

$1:

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.

Armed Polar 8's, from a purely military standpoint, are useless in and outside of the Arctic. The small calibre armaments they were to carry would provide marginal ASuW capability, detecting submarines would be extremely difficult and prosecuting them impossible, and the ship would have been near defenceless against air threats.

What is the point of it?

Armed icebreakers may not be a great military asset, but they do provide a constant presence in an area that is sparsely populated and very isolated. They certainly would be a better sovereignty maintenance/patrol tool than the Rangers with their snowmobiles.

Further, many other nations with icebreakers arm them (or they have the capability to be armed), so it makes sense to do the same for ours. The only reason the CCG's ships are not armed is because the CCG is a civilian organization, not a military one.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

That's why the Navy pushed for the slush breaking OPV design because it actually has utility outside of sea ice. Can free up the frigates for blue water operations.

The AOPV is the very definition of jack of all trades, master of none.

The biggest problem I have with them is their limited ice-breaking capability - they should be capable of year round Arctic ops, not just a couple months in the summer. If that's all we want, just buy the CCG a couple more light icebreakers and be done with it.

[saturn_656]

My suggestion is to mount a .50 cal in a RMS (or a Phalanx) on the bow of every major CG icebreaker. If the CG can't figure out which end is the hazardous one, send a small detachment of Naval Reservists to operate it.

We'll have armed icebreakers everywhere. For a fraction of the cost.

[ShepherdsDog]

CG is not a branch of the military, although they are charged with enforcement of certain laws like game wardens(DNR), who are also being armed to deal with poachers. Rather than the ship itself being armed, allow the crew to carry light firearms, like AR-15s or M-16s and sidearms...weapons used by the police. Pretty sure they can get former naval personnel with training in landing and boarding parties.

[Regina]

Bolt a few sidewinder missiles on the deck.........maybe a Hellfire or two.

[Jonny_C]

I think we're going to continue to cling to the idea that "Nothing happens up there" until something happens, and we'll be woefully unprepared.

[Jabberwalker]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

AB Wong Wei was at the helm.

Laugh all you want but, some poor Senior Naval Officer who did nothing but spend his entire career proving the "Peter Principal" correct is going through hell right now.

He's probably already made the death walk from A Jetty up the Hill to the Admirals
Quarters armed only with his Sword and book of Great Canadian Naval Excuses.


Trust me his God Father will already be preparing a new and improved posting for him where he can go and lick his wounds after of course, his promotion.

... in charge of the Canex at CFB Alert.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Don't blame the guys too much. It's damn hard to concentrate on steering the boat when Gunnair is screaming in the ear of the kid at the wheel about where the missing strawberries went.

I'd + you for that if I could!

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Which is why a redefinition of The Job, that Canada's been avoiding for at least three decades, has to happen before we move forward in a proper direction. Why exactly do we need to project naval strength to the far reaches of the world when the most we do over "there" is fill a very minor support role? Can helicopters and fast patrol boats successfully take over, at a fraction of the cost, from what traditional frigates and destroyers do off our own shores? I'm not saying I support one of anything over the other but it's still a conversation that has to be had.

Why have a military at all? Just surrender to the USA and we'll protect you...since we're going to be responsible for your protection anyway you may as well give up any lingering notions of actual sovereignty and just acknowledge your self-imposed status as a vassal of the USA.