Derek 2.0

Yes and no, likewise there is no measure of frequency of use, furthermore one can belong to as many ranges as they wish. For example, I belong to a gun club (and several ranges) that is Province wide, which allows me to go to any open-to-public range in the Province and pay a drop-in fee.

A city, or Province, can't ban handguns, that is the sole purview of the Federal Government, afforded under the Canadian Firearms Act........A city could revoke the business license of ranges, clubs and stores, but that has zero legal effect on ownership (as long as said owner complies with the Federal laws).

Today Mulcair was asked if he'd bring back the gun registry: And what tools would those be? And within an hour, from the Tories: The attack adds are writing themselves........one can take to the bank that in the weeks ahead, the NDP will be pressed on the topic....or allow the Tories to define the NDP's position for them.......there are now over 2 million PAL holders in Canada (and growing), which do vote, representing nearly 10% of total potential voters across Canada or (based on the last elections numbers) 13% of likely voters......over 25% of gun owners reside in British Columbia and Alberta, of which the NDP are hoping to see some sort of breakthrough. As Liberal MP Wayne Easter said last year, the Liberal's past support of the LGR cost them upwards of 60 potential seats across Canada........ ---- From this older policy document: So the Federal NDP will devolve Federal Law (Canadian Firearms Act) out to municipalities, provinces and territories? How does that work........So one city could ban handguns, but the city next to it can maintain current Federal law? And in doing so, how does the Federal NDP see this as a way to reduce the ~100 annual homicides committed with handguns in Canada, of which, the majority of said handguns are smuggled into Canada anyways.......... So, what does Mulcair mean by an obligation of result?

The age of them, now that they've been retrofitted, is moot, unlike fighters, larger military aircraft are far more durable.......the USAF has been flying B-52s and KC-135s for decades, and will continue to fly them for decades still......what is important is the electronics on the inside, which the CP-140 is now state of the art.

The four not upgraded will replace the Arcturus aircraft in the training role, themselves being replaced by four, smaller ISR aircraft for operations overseas....

Close, but not quite..... your information is again flawed. First, our frigates cost far too much and are overkill to use "further out" to combat smugglers and illegal fishing boats, the DeWolf class will cost a fraction to operate as a CPF offshore off our three coasts.....Second, we have both satellites and maritime coastal radar, and information sharing (via post 9/11 NORAD) and coordination with the Americans....we know what ships are approaching North America 24/7365.......third, the CP-140s aren't antiques, with the recent AIMP, they are one of the most capable (and combat proven) aircraft in the World, combining the roles that the USN and USAF does with several aircraft (P-3, P-8, EP-8 and E-8 joint stars).........and with all that, we have the ability to place "smaller, faster vessels, inshore" due to a gift from the Greeks......trigonometry

Not for domestic use........The RCN ran away from corvettes (and pressed minesweepers) for Atlantic use once Canadian yards could turn out the River class frigates....the corvettes were far too small, and in rough weather, the crews spent more time keeping them afloat then looking for U-Boats...... Something like the (larger) LCS would be useful (and cheaper) for Canada, forward deployed, in the Persian Gulf or to combat Somali pirates etc, but would be useless as tits on a bull on operations in the North Atlantic/Pacific.....

Small, fast ships, don't operate in rough weather, which is found year-round on all three of our coasts.......a ships helicopter is far more then a "nice to have", on the majority of modern naval vessels, the helicopter(s) are one of the cornerstones of the ships sensor/weapons suite.........you want "good eyes", the ship with a helicopter beats the ship without hands down...........As to your cost comparisons, you're talking out of your ass......a single, gas turbine powered (you want fast) naval vessel burns more fuel in several hours then a helicopter operating for over a week.....furthermore, a helicopter can patrol an area in hours, what would take ship days.......

Exactly, likewise RIMPAC......the Kingstons do certain niche roles very well, and the Harry DeWolf class will only expand on that.

Speed plays little into the equation....their azimuth thrusters allow the Kingstons to "hover" in rough weather (what conventional ships can't do), which is important when supporting MCM/route survey/dive support etc Riiight..........the contract for 5+1 is already signed, with production already started on the first......... By other navies, I trust you meant other navies, other than the Danes, Norwegians and Russians don't operate ice-capable patrol vessels......odd that Northern countries would do that........ Compared to what? Yet, the GoC has already signed a $2.3 billion contract with Irving for six of them......... Our presence is far more involved then the Rangers........Oddly enough, during the construction of the previous DEW line, our then RCN icebreaker played a key role......... As to Arctic SAR, where do you propose to base these "few extra helicopters"? You understand, the Canadian Arctic region is larger then Western Europe right? Clearly you don't see the advantage of several, mobile, full service helicopter vessels, present during the shipping season, that will be capable of supporting every helicopter (sans the Chinook) in service of the GoC......in addition, a mobile platform, with more extensive air traffic control, and rescue coordination facilities then nearly all Northern Communities combined..........thankfully, based on the annual Nanook exercises (since 2007), the DND and CCG understand the utility of such an investment.... Are you expecting a serious response? Name an "old freighter", that is cheaper and faster, and will have the same capabilities as the DeWolf class........

The Kingston class performs all of its roles, sans OPV, well......there is nothing wrong with the class, which has outstanding maneuverability and performs its assigned tasks as well as any other similar class in any other modern navy....... And what are you basing your opinion on the DeWolf class being poor at performing its assigned future tasks? Name me another Polar 5 ice-capable patrol vessel to compare.........likewise, why the DeWolf class will make a poor "patrol ship"? Its big, will have good sea-keeping, won't bob like a cork in the Atlantic or Pacific (due to retractable stabilizers) and will be able to operate a (large) helicopter in the same sea states as our current frigates.......and of course, it has a Polar 5 hull rating........not too many navies and coast guards around the world have a similar capability.... 5 + 1 ships.......your advanced LCS, which doesn't meet our domestic needs, will cost over a billion per vessel..... They are not intended to project power in the Arctic, but provide presence and support to the Department of National Defense operations within the Canadians Arctic......everything from support to NORAD/surveillance, Arctic SAR, supporting the Rangers, and arctic warfare training for the regular force.... I did read the cite........I'm referring to tonnage, of which, outside our previous AORs, cruisers, and aircraft carriers, the Harry DeWolf class will be the largest ships commissioned in the RCN. I know, the "enhanced flight deck" will be able to land the FAA's Merlins and Wildcats (maybe refuel?), but, as I said, not support them....... The DeWolf class will have a range closer to 7000 nautical miles.....and can support its helicopter and smaller vessels (including landing craft), in addition to carrying ISO containers, snowmobiles, quads, light tracked vehicles, small UAVs (like the Kingston class), an ROV, route survey equipment, a hyperbaric chamber etc..........the River class OPV.....not so much. When ever it deploys to the Arctic on annual operations or when its used as a response to a natural disaster, be it domestic or overseas.

And who do you think "runs" Canada's foreign policy? A safe assumption: "It produced a sound as from a myriad of roaring dragons and was borne by Athena in battle....among them went bright eyed Athena, holding the precious AEGIS which is ageless and immortal: a hundred tassels of pure gold hang fluttering from it, tight woven each of them, and each the worth of a hundred oxen" - Homer's Iliad-

NATO, the UN, and "partisan objectives" are apart of the Government of Canada's foreign policies...... You're right, the technology is more advanced, as such, the technology of the 70s and 80s that negated the then Soviet threat has progressed to a point that it further negates a now far reduced Russian or Chinese threats....... Sure, and as a response, the USN's deterrent alone could end the Russian and Chinese culture as we know it.....what is your point?

The death of the Liberal Party of Canada and the formation of essentially a two-party system has been the goal of Prime Minister Harper for decades.......of the belief that in such a system, a center-right political party will form Government ~70% of the time, as evident by the fact that though the majority of Canadians are socially liberal/progressive, they are also fiscally conservative.. Many said Harper would change Canada "forever"......look no further then the Liberal and NDP both campaigning on some sort of tax relief and refusal to suggest (openly) they would spend Canada into the red.......

The Russian battle group centered around their sole aircraft carrier, when it sorties every few years, deploy's with a large oceangoing tug.......

Due to the Chinese's navies lack of viable ASW assets, the Chinese have multiple targets......

The Royal Canadian Navy's sole purpose, for over 100 years, is to act as an extension to the foreign policies of the Government of Canada. The Russians also had missiles that "could sink NATO's fleets" through the 70s and 80s.........though they did then pose a threat, the reality then was that outside the use of nuclear warheads, the Soviets would have expended nearly their entire Naval Aviation Regiments to maybe sink one USN Carrier Battle Group........The Russians and Chinese today aren't a fraction of what the former Soviet Union was....... We will be building two new AORs, well looking at introducing an interim type and are currently leasing two of our allies support ships.....

Yeah, just ask President Herman "9-9-9" Cain.........oh wait.

And today: In my opinion, Kasich fits perfectly into the Bush/Walker/Rubio/Perry camp of the GOP. He's has an interesting life, comes from modest roots (Father was a postal worker), turned to religion after losing both his parents to a drunk driver and though a fiscal Republican, during his time in Ohio, he still found funds to further invest in treatment for the mentally ill, drug addicted and further healthcare for children and poor seniors (by expanding Medicaid coverage).......and of course, no GOP President has won without Ohio......... Politically, in my opinion, a Bush (Florida) / Kasich (Ohio) ticket would be quite realistic, and would very likely beat Clinton...

I'm not the least bit surprised, the Liberal Party isn't only fighting for this election, but its future relevance in Canadian Politics.........I fully expect, behind close doors I might add, the Liberals know they will not form Government, either alone or as a senior partner (with the NDP or Tories) and now must fight to form the Official Opposition.......I fully expect the Liberals to open up their war chest and bag of political tricks in the months weeks ahead, jumping into the wake of the looming Tory machine.

I think that is the intent of most of the GOP field.........worked for Reagan.

Neat story, too bad Byers didn't actually address anything factual.........like the Americans consulting with Canadians on Arctic technology...

Why? Our Navy very much so provides a constabulary role (since its inception) to our maritime security, far more then the unionized Canadian Coast Guard........The DeWolf class will be a vast improvement over the Kingston class for domestic requirements, well also not being a costly waste of resources, as it is when we use a frigate or destroyer to "combat" fishing boats and drug smugglers off our coasts....... In addition, purpose built Arctic vessels will give our a navy a capability that isn't shared by any other, from sole presence in the Arctic, to supporting ongoing and future military and government operations in our far North........ Comparable? The new RN Rivers will be 1/3rd the size of the DeWolf class, have a reduced range and endurance, and won't be able to support and sustain a helicopter, nor have the C&C facilities that will allow the vessels to support multi sized sea, air and on land operations........and of course, as you pointed out, won't be able to operate in the ice.

You're repeating incorrect media talking points...........first, Canada didn't "buy the design" of the vessel off the shelf, we purchased the design of the (ice breaking) hull form used on a successful line of modern civilian icebreakers........The rest of the cost is associated with designing the entire vessel to military (not civilian) standards, using an already designed hull form........the cost of the electronic and communication gear aboard the vessels will likely cost more than the entire build of a civilian icebreaker of equal size........ Canada's cumulative coast line is over 200 000 kms........care to guess how many Canadian ports stock jet fuel? 47 knots in sprints, not sustained and no where close to that in the North Atlantic or North Pacific, the LCS's sustained speed is closer to the AOPS, and less in any type of weather. Of course, the DeWolf's Cyclone will have a sustained speed of over 125 knots, and nearly 1/6th the range of the LCS in one flight........ There is no question the DeWolf will be able to operate in the Arctic sailing season........the "high summer" sees Northern Communities supplied by barges towed by conventional tugs.....in late Spring through early Fall, the Canadian Coast Guard uses (3) icebreakers, to support Northern shipping, with the same ice rating (Polar 5) as the DeWolf class............ And no, the LCS wouldn't make better offshore patrol vessels, as demonstrated by their current service with the USN, in which they can only be fully utilized in calm seas, like the Persian Gulf, Caribbean, Med and the South China sea..........your LCS would be hard pressed to operate as intended off our coastlines from September to April. They will go up North, and be more capable than the current Kingston class that does the like........likewise, due to their sheer size, they will also be more capable off both our Pacific and Atlantic coasts year round, more so then the current Kingston class, or our Coast Guard's Hero class, and miles ahead of the Littoral Combat Ship.......... You understand what Littoral means right? Then why did you cite the current LCS-Freedom Class? Both LCS classes will cease production in the short-term in favor of a larger, frigate sized vessel ...........I fail to see why you feel Canada needs a heavily armed, AEGIS equipped, corvette/frigate sized vessels, that is not suitable to patrol off our coasts, to fend off polluters, fishery violators, smugglers and provide SAR services.........The United States Coast Guard doesn't even have a requirement for such a beast.......... What you're suggesting is akin to replacing the RCMP's Crown Victoria's with a Bradly IFV, when a Tahoe is all that is needed, well still improving greatly on capability over what it is replacing........

They didn't promise the DeWolf class to be icebreakers, as they are building a large icebreaker for the Coast Guard, but the Harry DeWolf class, as I already said, have an equal or better ice rating to all but two of our current icebreakers, including the very medium icebreakers that our Coast Guard provides ice breaking services to commercial shipping in the Arctic sailing months........... As to their purpose, as defined by the RCN, to act as long range offshore patrol vessels on all three of our coasts, in addition to enabling greater support to the military and other Government agencies in the Arctic..............As to their speed versus a fishing boat, that is negated easily: