[DrCaleb]

eureka eureka:

Does anyone think that this really has anything to do with our Arctic sovereignty? I would say that the only way that can be affirmed lies in the diplomatic initiatives that are going on and the agreements that the Arctic countries will come to peacefully.

Will the Americans or the Russians be deterred from acting on their claims by a puny fleet. Or by the F35s!

It has everything to do with it. The International Law of the Sea says that waterway ownerships are determined by their use in commerce (not military presence). If we can't keep Northwest passages open and our shipping going to places like Churchill or Tuktoyuktuk, we lose the right to call them 'our' waters.

If the Russians or Americans do it, they become their waters and passages. And the Russians are far better at it than we are.

[bootlegga]

eureka eureka:

Does anyone think that this really has anything to do with our Arctic sovereignty? I would say that the only way that can be affirmed lies in the diplomatic initiatives that are going on and the agreements that the Arctic countries will come to peacefully.

Will the Americans or the Russians be deterred from acting on their claims by a puny fleet. Or by the F35s!

Yes, I do - the problem though is that Harper is planning on building ships that won't be of use for most of the year in the Arctic. The Arctic Patrol Vessels will in fact be corvette-sized runts that will spend most of the year off Halifax or Esquimalt.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yes, I do - the problem though is that Harper is planning on building ships that won't be of use for most of the year in the Arctic. The Arctic Patrol Vessels will in fact be corvette-sized runts that will spend most of the year off Halifax or Esquimalt.

The A/OPV's are to be rated Polar Class 5, which is capable of:

$1:

Year-round operation in medium first-year ice which may include old ice
inclusions

http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/CES/Ar ... c-2002.pdf

As far as being "runts", they APOV's will be the largest (tonnage wise) surface combatants in the RCN aside from the resupply vessels.

[Scape]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/polit ... ice=mobile

$1:

The other report indicated the government has plans to freeze the size of the military at 68,000 people over the next few years and will as consider selling off property and shutting down bases to save money.

“Can the minister tell us today that none of these crucial jobs at CFB Esquimalt will be cut back through some reckless fire sale by the Conservatives?” demanded B.C. New Democrat Randall Garrison.

Replied Mr. MacKay: “I can assure the member opposite and all members here today that the Conservative government will continue to make historic investments in the Canadian Forces.”

A non-denial denial. In other words he wouldn't say Esquimalt wasn't on the chopping block. Never a good sign.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yes, I do - the problem though is that Harper is planning on building ships that won't be of use for most of the year in the Arctic. The Arctic Patrol Vessels will in fact be corvette-sized runts that will spend most of the year off Halifax or Esquimalt.

The A/OPV's are to be rated Polar Class 5, which is capable of:

$1:

Year-round operation in medium first-year ice which may include old ice
inclusions

http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/CES/Ar ... c-2002.pdf

As far as being "runts", they APOV's will be the largest (tonnage wise) surface combatants in the RCN aside from the resupply vessels.

Yes, they are capable of year round operations in one metre sea ice - any guess how much of the Arctic has one metre sea ice in January? It's a far cry from the three Heavy Icebreakers (Polar class 7 or better) Harper originally promised. That means that most of the Arctic will be off limits for 4-6 months of the year.

Maybe I'm mistaken on the size then - most OPVs other countries use are a fair bit smaller than the Halifaxes. Even if the AOPVs are bigger, they will pack far less punch than a Halifax does.

I stand by my assertion though - the RCN has no desire to patrol the Arctic whatsoever, and that, combined with their lack of heavy ice-breaking capability, will be why they will spend most of the year in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, not the Arctic as Harper has alluded.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yes, they are capable of year round operations in one metre sea ice - any guess how much of the Arctic has one metre sea ice in January? It's a far cry from the three Heavy Icebreakers (Polar class 7 or better) Harper originally promised. That means that most of the Arctic will be off limits for 4-6 months of the year.

Maybe the government chart is wrong, but according to it, PC1 is the highest rating for an icebreaker, while PC7 is the lowest.

The St. Laurent, and its replacement the... um... Diefenbaker , are rated Polar Class 1. If we need to get a boat up that far up north, we can always use one of the big CG ships.

$1:

Maybe I'm mistaken on the size then - most OPVs other countries use are a fair bit smaller than the Halifaxes. Even if the AOPVs are bigger, they will pack far less punch than a Halifax does.

They will be OPV's in armament and crew complement, but they will be much heavier than than the frigates and destroyers. Gotta have a thick hull to break ice.

$1:

I stand by my assertion though - the RCN has no desire to patrol the Arctic whatsoever, and that, combined with their lack of heavy ice-breaking capability, will be why they will spend most of the year in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, not the Arctic as Harper has alluded.

I imagine the lower sections of the archipelago will be accessible for most (if not all) of the year to the AOPV's given how far the sea ice is completely clearing out in the summer. If this trend continues these vessels will be able to operate farther north for longer as time goes on.

Also the Navy had no interest in PC1 class icebreakers, as these ships are not very useful to the Navy outside of the Arctic. The A/OPV's will have utility patrolling the Atlantic and Pacific EEZ's, meaning we don't have to waste more capable frigates and destroyers on that mundane task.

[peck420]

Do we really need ice breakers that can navigate anywhere in the artic anyways?

It is my understanding that if we control the main passage acces points, we control the whole passageway...feel free to correct this if wrong.

[saturn_656]

peck420 peck420:

Do we really need ice breakers that can navigate anywhere in the artic anyways?

It is my understanding that if we control the main passage acces points, we control the whole passageway...feel free to correct this if wrong.

Best class of vessels we could buy for arctic security are nuclear submarines.

Thickness of the ice doesn't much matter as long as you have enough water under the boat, and they also have the firepower to sink something if you need to.

Cheap buggers will never spring for proper submarines. Icebreakers are next to useless militarily, they can't prosecute subsurface targets nor do they have the firepower to properly prosecute surface targets.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yes, they are capable of year round operations in one metre sea ice - any guess how much of the Arctic has one metre sea ice in January? It's a far cry from the three Heavy Icebreakers (Polar class 7 or better) Harper originally promised. That means that most of the Arctic will be off limits for 4-6 months of the year.

Maybe the government chart is wrong, but according to it, PC1 is the highest rating for an icebreaker, while PC7 is the lowest.

The St. Laurent, and its replacement the... um... Diefenbaker , are rated Polar Class 1. If we need to get a boat up that far up north, we can always use one of the big CG ships.

I guess I confused it with the old Polar 8 Mulroney promised to build...my bad.

[Gunnair]

Roe Roe:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Roe Roe:

But, but....I thought government spending to create jobs was baaaaaad?

I'm wondering why cons aren't up in arms about money being spent when we have a huge deficit.....oh I forgot....it's not the Liberals or NDP doing it.

Probably because we're not interested in hearing the idiotic leftards scream if we handed the keys of the country over to the imperialist US when we asked them to patrol our littoral waters for us.

Still dosen't answer the question.

I was wondering if this ship building was tendered around the world, if we must go further into debt to buy these things at the very least we can shop around.....right?

[eureka]

I do not see how this improves Canada's claims to sovereignty other than beefing up our presence a little. The Law of the Sea provides that a country has jurisdiction over a 12 mile limit. That covers 24 miles where some of the passages are a hundred miles or so wide. Canada's claim to jurisdiction over those passages has been disputed and remains unsettled.

There are varying views among experts. Some say that Canada does have a strong claim: others say it is weak. Some now say that as the Arctic melts and becomes more open, our claim weakens more since there will no longer be hunting and other activities by our Arctic population. Just open water.

The last serious dispute was - apart from Han Island -when the US sent a submarine through about 25 years ago without informing Canada. There was a settlement where the US agreed never to do it again without Canada's agreement. Canada agreed never to withhold that agreement.

The Russians have their own claims that conflict.

Hardly a boost to our claim.

I still think that only diplomacy and International agreement will settle this. There are such negotiations ongoing now and that is where we should be putting our efforts: making friends instead of alienating other Arctic nations and the rest of the world at the UN lest it come down to some UN decree.

[ShepherdsDog]

Sorry, things are fine here. Find some other garden to spread your shit.

[uwish]

eureka eureka:

I do not see how this improves Canada's claims to sovereignty other than beefing up our presence a little. The Law of the Sea provides that a country has jurisdiction over a 12 mile limit. That covers 24 miles where some of the passages are a hundred miles or so wide. Canada's claim to jurisdiction over those passages has been disputed and remains unsettled.

There are varying views among experts. Some say that Canada does have a strong claim: others say it is weak. Some now say that as the Arctic melts and becomes more open, our claim weakens more since there will no longer be hunting and other activities by our Arctic population. Just open water.

The last serious dispute was - apart from Han Island -when the US sent a submarine through about 25 years ago without informing Canada. There was a settlement where the US agreed never to do it again without Canada's agreement. Canada agreed never to withhold that agreement.

The Russians have their own claims that conflict.

Hardly a boost to our claim.

I still think that only diplomacy and International agreement will settle this. There are such negotiations ongoing now and that is where we should be putting our efforts: making friends instead of alienating other Arctic nations and the rest of the world at the UN lest it come down to some UN decree.

get your head out of the sand! if you do not use a space it is free for the taking. The only way Canada can maintain any control over it's waterways is by having assets in said waterways.

man, your thoughts scare me, you must be either PQ or NDP, you live in a world that doesn't exist appart from your own mind.