[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

A navy is a navy regardless of how many ships it has.

In the rhetorical sense, yes, you're right. In the matter of real-world strategy a modern navy can provide its own air cover. That means that the CF Maritime is a 'navy' so long as it stays under land-based air coverage. Stray too far from land and all you have are haze-gray targets. That's why you need a couple (modest) carriers.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Our 'glorified little coast guard' as you call it, has 12 excellent frigates (so good that they are the only non-US frigates in the world that can be slotted into a US carrier group), three very good anti-air defence destroyers (despite the hulls being old, the electronics and weapons are quite modern), and 4 SSKs, one of which was capable enough to sneak through a British task group's defences and get into position to sink an aircraft carrier.

And if you sank the Brits carrier they'd be up sh*t creek with only one carrier left in operation and this goes to my point of the US having so many carriers and it is why Canada needs, IMHO, three carriers; one in each ocean with another as backup.

That Canadian ships can be slotted into a US carrier group has far more to do with policy than capability (not that the Canadian ships are not fine ships). Canadian wartime policy has long had the Canadian maritime forces acting as an adjunct to the US Navy. The other navy that (will soon have a flattop) that has capital ships that are the equal of US ships is Japan. They have AEGIS ships that have worked closely with the US in recent exercises, but as a policy, only Canadian ships will join up with the US Navy in wartime.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Does our navy need some new ships? Sure, but who's navy doesn't these days. Hell, you've been bitching in another thread that the Gates might not fund 11 supercarrier groups. If the USN shrinks to 4 or 5, is it too a glorified coast guard?

Sink those 4-5 carriers and my answer will be "yes".

bootlegga bootlegga:

And yes, I've read your proposals for Canadian carriers and amphibs and all that. That still doesn't justify calling another nation's navy a task force.

You can say 'no offence', but whether or not you intend it, it is still there.

I could just as easily say American soldiers are a bunch of war-mongering hormone-driven assholes, and then add in some BS qualifier afterwards about a handful of US troops, and you'd still be right to take offence at that statement (not that I'm saying that, it's just an example).

Why? Because I'd be slandering the entire US Army.

The fact is you're smearing an entire service and it's not cool.

I'm not smearing the service, brother, I am smearing the Parliament that will whitewash a problem by calling it a RCN instead of properly funding and outfitting the service to do a job worthy of the name.

[PENATRATOR]

c2shinysea c2shinysea:

$1:

In the military there is a lot in a name and history/heritage. It is the tie that binds our bands of brothers.

With all due respect EyeBrock, why don't I pull up a sand bag and light the old lamp and you can regale me with stories of old naval traditions. Or is my having two generations of Air Force, two generations of Horse Artys, four generations of Royal Marines and seven generations of Naval personnel going to cut short your story time? Shall I take note that the histories of my family and those members that find themselves named on memorials in Ypres, Falklands, Singapore, Burma, Hong Kong, Halifax, Ortona, Malta, Korea and Afghanistan aren't the stuff that binds the bands of brothers?

KeeeeRIST, do you come off reeking as a pompous j-ass. Please bud, don't give us your family pedigree online, cause nobody gives a flying fuck. Everyone bow down to this internet stranger who lives in Ontario, brags about sea time and speaks like he's got some serious TI, yet mentions having to do another 18. Nice history lesson though, I think you must be related to someone who died in a roll over in Bosnia to? If you have any relative who proudly served this nation in time of war, I am sure their only regret is being responsible for spawning a little snot like yourself.

[Scape]

Sorry boots but I have to take Barts side on this one:

Blue-water navy

$1:

Navies described as blue-water navies

These are navies that have successfully used the capabilities of their blue-water navies to exercise control at high seas and from there have projected power into other nations' littoral waters.

* The French Navy (Marine Nationale) has the ability to deploy an aircraft-carrier-based task group and maintains a Continuous At Sea Deterrence included in the Force Océanique Stratégique (Strategic Oceanic Force). France also has a wide range of naval deployments throughout the world.[10]

* The Russian Navy maintains a Carrier Battle Group around Admiral Kuznetsov and multiple Surface Action Groups centered around nuclear-powered Large Battle Cruisers of Kirov Class. Russia also maintains a posture of Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) with its ballistic missile submarine fleet, comparable to United States Navy.

* The United Kingdom's Royal Navy maintains two task forces concurrently (one based around an aircraft carrier and one based around an Amphibious assault ship). At least one task group is deployed at any one time. There are currently two Invincible-class aircraft carriers in operation, with a further one in reserve. The Royal Navy also uses the Ocean-class Landing Platform, Helicopter (LPH) as well as the two Albion-class amphibious transport docks as the centre of a task group. The Royal Navy maintains a Continuous At Sea Deterrence policy via its Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines utilising Trident missiles. The Royal Navy also supports a number of standing commitments worldwide on a continuous basis.[11]

* The United States Navy maintains eleven Carrier Strike Groups (one centered on USS Enterprise, the remainder on Nimitz class carriers), of which six are deployed or ready for deployment within 30 days, and two ready for deployment within 90 days under the Fleet Response Plan (FRP). The US Navy also maintains a posture of Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) through the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles on Ohio-class submarines. It also maintains a continuous deployment of Expeditionary Strike Groups that embark a Marine Expeditionary Unit with an Aviation Combat Element of Landing Helicopter Docks and Landing Helicopter Assault.[12]


Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities

A number of other countries maintain navies capable of a relatively limited expeditionary operation. The Italian Navy operates 2 indigenous aircraft carriers, the Spanish Navy operates a single indigenous aircraft carrier, while the Indian Navy[13][14][15] operates a British-built aircraft carrier. All 3 of these navies are capable of limited oceanic operations. The Brazilian Navy also owns a French-built carrier but mainly operates in its coastal and regional waters. The Royal Thai Navy owns a Spanish-built carrier that is largely inactive. Many navies, including the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force,[16] Republic of Korea Navy,[17] Royal Australian Navy,[18] Canadian Forces Maritime Command,[19] and the People's Liberation Army Navy[20] operate a limited number of ships far from their home waters either alone or in coordination with true "blue water navies". None of these operate aircraft carriers.

Simply put we do not fit the definition.

[PENATRATOR]

bootlegga bootlegga:

[quote="BartSimpson

You're not quoting the part where I said 'no offence'. I truly mean no offence.

You probably missed the 100 to 500 posts I've made on this site over the years agitating for Canada to have a Navy worthy of the name and, more importantly, capable of protecting Canada without US help. I can say this with authority that there is no greater advocate of a Canadian Navy than myself.

But I also stand by what I said in that the Royal Canadian Navy was a Royal Canadian Navy worthy of the name. Calling today's maritime force a 'navy' is an act of braggadocio or hubris, not a statement of fact.

Canada needs a navy that can, at a rational minimum, control the seas around Canada 24/7/365.

As I posited a few years ago, the US Navy is going to be far smaller and weaker when Obama gets through with it and that means Canada will, of necessity, need to shoulder more of the burden of patrolling Canadian waters. Granted, the Atlantic and Pacific are adequately patrolled by the CF. But the Arctic is patrolled exclusively by US nuclear subs in the winter.

I've noticed no one calls me 'paranoid' any more when I mention the Russians as a threat to Canada in the Arctic and that's because the Russians have made it abundantly clear that they are a threat to Canada's interests in the Arctic. And Russia has a navy to enforce their claims while Canada, so far, has the US Navy to protect Canada's claims. Obama is going to cure Canada of having the US Navy to run interference so that means Canada needs attack subs that can patrol under the ice for extended periods. Canadians might be averse to a nuclear navy, but it is apparent you need one in a post-American 21st Century.

I also support Canada having at least two (preferably three) small carriers sporting VTOL jet fighters and attack helicopters - somewhat cheaper than fleet carriers - to make Canada the blue water navy it needs to be in order to protect fishing rights and etc. in a resource hungry world.

When it comes down to it, I support Canada's building a navy, not just calling a glorified coast guard service a navy.

A navy is a navy regardless of how many ships it has.

Our 'glorified little coast guard' as you call it, has 12 excellent frigates (so good that they are the only non-US frigates in the world that can be slotted into a US carrier group), three very good anti-air defence destroyers (despite the hulls being old, the electronics and weapons are quite modern), and 4 SSKs, one of which was capable enough to sneak through a British task group's defences and get into position to sink an aircraft carrier.

Does our navy need some new ships? Sure, but who's navy doesn't these days. Hell, you've been bitching in another thread that the Gates might not fund 11 supercarrier groups. If the USN shrinks to 4 or 5, is it too a glorified coast guard?

And yes, I've read your proposals for Canadian carriers and amphibs and all that. That still doesn't justify calling another nation's navy a task force.

You can say 'no offence', but whether or not you intend it, it is still there.

I could just as easily say American soldiers are a bunch of war-mongering hormone-driven assholes, and then add in some BS qualifier afterwards about a handful of US troops, and you'd still be right to take offence at that statement (not that I'm saying that, it's just an example).

Why? Because I'd be slandering the entire US Army.

The fact is you're smearing an entire service and it's not cool.[/quote][/quote]







Well that's a nice change, usually it's anybody that wore a maroon beret for Canada that you save that for.

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

Sorry boots but I have to take Barts side on this one:

Blue-water navy

$1:

Navies described as blue-water navies

These are navies that have successfully used the capabilities of their blue-water navies to exercise control at high seas and from there have projected power into other nations' littoral waters.

* The French Navy (Marine Nationale) has the ability to deploy an aircraft-carrier-based task group and maintains a Continuous At Sea Deterrence included in the Force Océanique Stratégique (Strategic Oceanic Force). France also has a wide range of naval deployments throughout the world.[10]

* The Russian Navy maintains a Carrier Battle Group around Admiral Kuznetsov and multiple Surface Action Groups centered around nuclear-powered Large Battle Cruisers of Kirov Class. Russia also maintains a posture of Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) with its ballistic missile submarine fleet, comparable to United States Navy.

* The United Kingdom's Royal Navy maintains two task forces concurrently (one based around an aircraft carrier and one based around an Amphibious assault ship). At least one task group is deployed at any one time. There are currently two Invincible-class aircraft carriers in operation, with a further one in reserve. The Royal Navy also uses the Ocean-class Landing Platform, Helicopter (LPH) as well as the two Albion-class amphibious transport docks as the centre of a task group. The Royal Navy maintains a Continuous At Sea Deterrence policy via its Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines utilising Trident missiles. The Royal Navy also supports a number of standing commitments worldwide on a continuous basis.[11]

* The United States Navy maintains eleven Carrier Strike Groups (one centered on USS Enterprise, the remainder on Nimitz class carriers), of which six are deployed or ready for deployment within 30 days, and two ready for deployment within 90 days under the Fleet Response Plan (FRP). The US Navy also maintains a posture of Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) through the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles on Ohio-class submarines. It also maintains a continuous deployment of Expeditionary Strike Groups that embark a Marine Expeditionary Unit with an Aviation Combat Element of Landing Helicopter Docks and Landing Helicopter Assault.[12]


Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities

A number of other countries maintain navies capable of a relatively limited expeditionary operation. The Italian Navy operates 2 indigenous aircraft carriers, the Spanish Navy operates a single indigenous aircraft carrier, while the Indian Navy[13][14][15] operates a British-built aircraft carrier. All 3 of these navies are capable of limited oceanic operations. The Brazilian Navy also owns a French-built carrier but mainly operates in its coastal and regional waters. The Royal Thai Navy owns a Spanish-built carrier that is largely inactive. Many navies, including the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force,[16] Republic of Korea Navy,[17] Royal Australian Navy,[18] Canadian Forces Maritime Command,[19] and the People's Liberation Army Navy[20] operate a limited number of ships far from their home waters either alone or in coordination with true "blue water navies". None of these operate aircraft carriers.

Simply put we do not fit the definition.

And I sorely wish I was wrong on this one.

[bootlegga]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Well that's a nice change, usually it's anybody that wore a maroon beret for Canada that you save that for.

Here's some advice you once gave me --- GFY!

[BartSimpson]

A reputation is a stubborn thing.

[PENATRATOR]

bootlegga bootlegga:

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Well that's a nice change, usually it's anybody that wore a maroon beret for Canada that you save that for.

Here's some advice you once gave me --- GFY!

Lack of originality, hard to believe

[bootlegga]

Scape Scape:

Sorry boots but I have to take Barts side on this one:

Blue-water navy

$1:

Navies described as blue-water navies

These are navies that have successfully used the capabilities of their blue-water navies to exercise control at high seas and from there have projected power into other nations' littoral waters.

* The French Navy (Marine Nationale) has the ability to deploy an aircraft-carrier-based task group and maintains a Continuous At Sea Deterrence included in the Force Océanique Stratégique (Strategic Oceanic Force). France also has a wide range of naval deployments throughout the world.[10]

* The Russian Navy maintains a Carrier Battle Group around Admiral Kuznetsov and multiple Surface Action Groups centered around nuclear-powered Large Battle Cruisers of Kirov Class. Russia also maintains a posture of Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) with its ballistic missile submarine fleet, comparable to United States Navy.

* The United Kingdom's Royal Navy maintains two task forces concurrently (one based around an aircraft carrier and one based around an Amphibious assault ship). At least one task group is deployed at any one time. There are currently two Invincible-class aircraft carriers in operation, with a further one in reserve. The Royal Navy also uses the Ocean-class Landing Platform, Helicopter (LPH) as well as the two Albion-class amphibious transport docks as the centre of a task group. The Royal Navy maintains a Continuous At Sea Deterrence policy via its Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines utilising Trident missiles. The Royal Navy also supports a number of standing commitments worldwide on a continuous basis.[11]

* The United States Navy maintains eleven Carrier Strike Groups (one centered on USS Enterprise, the remainder on Nimitz class carriers), of which six are deployed or ready for deployment within 30 days, and two ready for deployment within 90 days under the Fleet Response Plan (FRP). The US Navy also maintains a posture of Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) through the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles on Ohio-class submarines. It also maintains a continuous deployment of Expeditionary Strike Groups that embark a Marine Expeditionary Unit with an Aviation Combat Element of Landing Helicopter Docks and Landing Helicopter Assault.[12]


Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities

A number of other countries maintain navies capable of a relatively limited expeditionary operation. The Italian Navy operates 2 indigenous aircraft carriers, the Spanish Navy operates a single indigenous aircraft carrier, while the Indian Navy[13][14][15] operates a British-built aircraft carrier. All 3 of these navies are capable of limited oceanic operations. The Brazilian Navy also owns a French-built carrier but mainly operates in its coastal and regional waters. The Royal Thai Navy owns a Spanish-built carrier that is largely inactive. Many navies, including the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force,[16] Republic of Korea Navy,[17] Royal Australian Navy,[18] Canadian Forces Maritime Command,[19] and the People's Liberation Army Navy[20] operate a limited number of ships far from their home waters either alone or in coordination with true "blue water navies". None of these operate aircraft carriers.

Simply put we do not fit the definition.

I'm not debating whether or not the Canadian Navy is a blue water force, but rather taking umbrage at his comment that it is a "glorified coast guard".

But, just for shits and giggles, here is the Navy's definitions of blue water capability;

$1:

Rank 3: Medium Global Force Projection Navy — These are navies that may not
possess the full range of capabilities, but have a credible capacity in certain of
them and consistently demonstrate a determination to exercise them at some
distance from home waters, in cooperation with other Force Projection Navies.
E.g., Canada, Netherlands, Australia.

Pg. 44, Leadmark 2020

http://www.navy.dnd.ca/leadmark/pdf/ENG ... _72DPI.PDF

Whether that's true or self-aggrandizement on the part of Navy brass is debatable.

[bootlegga]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

bootlegga bootlegga:

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Well that's a nice change, usually it's anybody that wore a maroon beret for Canada that you save that for.

Here's some advice you once gave me --- GFY!

Lack of originality, hard to believe

Well, as I said it was advice YOU gave me!

BTW, I've never said that everybody who wore maroon berets were shit-eating neo-nazis, just a large number of the last ones to wear it.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Mates of mine in the PPCLI and RCR don't see things quite your way thankfully.

Though you may dislike the newbie delivery, the fact is, the Army and Air Force, though under similar budget constraints, are not in the same situation as the Navy is. They have recieved a number of their deliverables whereas the Navy has not. A public forum is not the place for me to give you a brief tutorial of the state of things in our Centennial year, so if you are curious as to what is motivating attitudes in the Navy, feel free to drop this part time serviceman, NCD wearing wannabe Walmart employee a PM.

Otherwise, glad hand the Americans on the forum, your army buddies, and remain blissfully ignorant of the state of your Navy.

[EyeBrock]

I shall look into it Gunnair! I just find the attitude of the poster in question hard to swallow.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I shall look into it Gunnair! I just find the attitude of the poster in question hard to swallow.

You might understand a bit more if you knew what sailors are facing these days.

[EyeBrock]

Maybe mate. That sort of talk just goes against the grain for me.

[Freakinoldguy]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

c2shinysea c2shinysea:

$1:

In the military there is a lot in a name and history/heritage. It is the tie that binds our bands of brothers.

With all due respect EyeBrock, why don't I pull up a sand bag and light the old lamp and you can regale me with stories of old naval traditions. Or is my having two generations of Air Force, two generations of Horse Artys, four generations of Royal Marines and seven generations of Naval personnel going to cut short your story time? Shall I take note that the histories of my family and those members that find themselves named on memorials in Ypres, Falklands, Singapore, Burma, Hong Kong, Halifax, Ortona, Malta, Korea and Afghanistan aren't the stuff that binds the bands of brothers?

KeeeeRIST, do you come off reeking as a pompous j-ass. Please bud, don't give us your family pedigree online, cause nobody gives a flying fuck. Everyone bow down to this internet stranger who lives in Ontario, brags about sea time and speaks like he's got some serious TI, yet mentions having to do another 18. Nice history lesson though, I think you must be related to someone who died in a roll over in Bosnia to? If you have any relative who proudly served this nation in time of war, I am sure their only regret is being responsible for spawning a little snot like yourself.

Well put. Most of us had more time going astern than he's got going ahead.