DogOnPorch Posted July 23, 2009 Report Posted July 23, 2009 Canada makes a wicked nuclear reactor we should have no problem makeing Nuclear subs or Ice breakers. Then we need new Planes and helicopters. All of these we should make from scratch in Canada to much of are military equipment is foreign made and pretty much none of it would hold up in the cold weather up north. Aircraft carriers used to be the best now they're just becomeing a liability Canada should avoid aircraft carriers. Not so easy, actually. Canada no longer has a major shipbuilding industry as in WW2. We do make some top-of-the-line experimental/deep diving submarines, though. But they're not the ticket. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Army Guy Posted July 23, 2009 Report Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) I must agree. I would prefer to see a far more muscled attempt made though. F18's simply won't due, we don't have enough of them anyway. Besides we need a presence on the ground all year round. We also need naval assets as well as air assets to do the job properly.Army Guy, am I out to lunch suggesting carrier battle groups? We need coastal protection too and with a few more land bases in the Arctic we could provide year round coverage. I know this isn't going to be cheap, but I see real value in the effort. Like i mentioned earlier we simply do not have the funding or manpower that would allow anything but baby steps in our artic....for now i think we will have to be content with a small contingent of 18's ( 4 or 6 a/c) rotating out of already established northern bases. as for our presence on the ground our Artic Rangers are being expanded, and now include more reg and res soldiers on thier patrols...these patrols are normally long range skidoo patrols, or what we call presence patrols...anything else is extremly hard to sustain, due to the size and weather conditions...i just want to piont out there is atleast 3 northen bases manned 365 days a year/ and operate 24 hours a day, on top of a robust Artic ranger contingent, and the infrequent patrols done by navy and airforce assets... But i will agree with you more needs to be done , and more is in the planning stages but don't look at anything to robust, other than what has been mentioned in the media such as a few armed ice breakers, UAV's, and more modified Aurora's that and more sat coverage. Army Guy, am I out to lunch suggesting carrier battle groups? We need coastal protection too and with a few more land bases in the Arctic we could provide year round coverage. I know this isn't going to be cheap, but I see real value in the effort. Ever navy guys wet dream, shit even i would like to live to see that day...Our military is a hurting unit right now, and is geared and set up in a survival mode, using most of it's resources and manpower to keep our sole focus afloat (Afghan) that means the Army is getting most of the funds and most of the recruits....i would be only guessing but at our current rate of budget increases and equipment expenditures more than 10 years before we could reset all 3 elements to a level that they could properly defend Canada...what your sugesting is a major chnage not only in how we defend the nation, everything would need to change, all our tactics, our current Naval TO&E, our training, everything....it's one thing to be able to slip into a US Carrier group and function and operate, (* it should be noted that Canada is the only nation to do this) it is a whole new ball of wax to own and operate your own...i think the cost of the latest US carrier is approaching the 6 bil mark, Janes military mag ests just the operating cost for 1 year are over 1 bil, on top of the fact that there is close to 5000 sailors onbaord more than what is in our current navy....and mostof these 5000 are doing jobs and trades that just do not exist in our military, so they would need to start form square one, not a easy task. besides an aircraft Carrier is a major piece of power projection....Most Canadians are having a problem with a ground componet in Afghan, can you only imagine what they would be screaming if we used an A/C carrier and 70 plus a/c to bomb say kosovo.... I guess to sum up , like everyone has already explained cost, manpower, and Canadian attitude is not ready for an Aircraft carrier just yet....I think we should modernize what we have with the best on the market, in the destroyer, frig , and corvette classes, and maybe a couple of those nice shinny American attack subs.... Edited July 23, 2009 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 23, 2009 Report Posted July 23, 2009 Like i mentioned earlier we simply do not have the funding or manpower that would allow anything but baby steps in our artic....for now i think we will have to be content with a small contingent of 18's ( 4 or 6 a/c) rotating out of already established northern bases. as for our presence on the ground our Artic Rangers are being expanded, and now include more reg and res soldiers on thier patrols...these patrols are normally long range skidoo patrols, or what we call presence patrols...anything else is extremly hard to sustain, due to the size and weather conditions...i just want to piont out there is atleast 3 northen bases manned 365 days a year/ and operate 24 hours a day, on top of a robust Artic ranger contingent, and the infrequent patrols done by navy and airforce assets...But i will agree with you more needs to be done , and more is in the planning stages but don't look at anything to robust, other than what has been mentioned in the media such as a few armed ice breakers, UAV's, and more modified Aurora's that and more sat coverage. Ever navy guys wet dream, shit even i would like to live to see that day...Our military is a hurting unit right now, and is geared and set up in a survival mode, using most of it's resources and manpower to keep our sole focus afloat (Afghan) that means the Army is getting most of the funds and most of the recruits....i would be only guessing but at our current rate of budget increases and equipment expenditures more than 10 years before we could reset all 3 elements to a level that they could properly defend Canada...what your sugesting is a major chnage not only in how we defend the nation, everything would need to change, all our tactics, our current Naval TO&E, our training, everything....it's one thing to be able to slip into a US Carrier group and function and operate, (* it should be noted that Canada is the only nation to do this) it is a whole new ball of wax to own and operate your own...i think the cost of the latest US carrier is approaching the 6 bil mark, Janes military mag ests just the operating cost for 1 year are over 1 bil, on top of the fact that there is close to 5000 sailors onbaord more than what is in our current navy....and mostof these 5000 are doing jobs and trades that just do not exist in our military, so they would need to start form square one, not a easy task. besides an aircraft Carrier is a major piece of power projection....Most Canadians are having a problem with a ground componet in Afghan, can you only imagine what they would be screaming if we used an A/C carrier and 70 plus a/c to bomb say kosovo.... I guess to sum up , like everyone has already explained cost, manpower, and Canadian attitude is not ready for an Aircraft carrier just yet....I think we should modernize what we have with the best on the market, in the destroyer, frig , and corvette classes, and maybe a couple of those nice shinny American attack subs.... Your logic and reason are clouding my fantasy! Army Guy we need to aspire to something, that is how we have always done our best. I am sick and tired of watching the military, my dad was a 35 year guy, making due with what they have. They deserve better for their efforts. Look at the bigger picture and tell me that building what we need isn't the right way to go. Tell me that training all of those needed recruits isn't in their and the nations best interests. Is what we are now doing in the north a credible defensive strategy? Or are our forces acting as a doorman capable only of scurrying out of the way in case of trouble? Quote
Army Guy Posted July 23, 2009 Report Posted July 23, 2009 Sorry, jerry believe me i would love to see a much larger and better equiped military, but after fixing things with gun tape for over 28 years your hopes and dreams become alittle jaded, and now even the little things now are major achievements... Building up Canada's military complex is a wise investment and a wise choice considering it's size now, but like our military it's in need of an overhaul . building up our north would be a good project whether it needs to be a military project is the question...hiring all those recruits has many advantages and disadvantages but over the next 10 years it would be a wise decission to grow our military to over 100 to 120 k. but going to fast or recruiting to much to soon delutes the entire rank structure and it's quality....we need time to properly train and give them the time to earn the experience they need....before we throw a young 20 year old into the breach who may just hold your grand sons or dauthers life in his or her hands.... with small numbers we can afford and control quality, it becomes a major task when the numbers grow to large to fast.... But i do agree with you this nation does need or better yet screams for a larger military, i am not talking about a massive military but one that could respond to a national emergency and make a difference, or one that could ensure or foreign policy is looked after....then there is the defence of our nation.... Is what we are now doing in the north a credible defensive strategy? If you mean could we stop a determined enemy from entering and claiming large sections of northern Canada....No With most of our Regular force troops tied into the Afghan mission, defence of our north has been delegated down to the reserves.... with some other reg force assets attached....Don't get me wrong i not trying to paint the reserves in a bad light , because that is not my intent, as they are good soldiers and can do the job, i just wanted to show you where the defence of the north sits with our government....one also has to remember that there is only 2 Brigade groups of reg force pers available to do anything in Canada, the other one is in Afghan or training for Afghan....and when you count bayonets thats not very many..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Sorry, jerry believe me i would love to see a much larger and better equiped military, but after fixing things with gun tape for over 28 years your hopes and dreams become alittle jaded, and now even the little things now are major achievements...Building up Canada's military complex is a wise investment and a wise choice considering it's size now, but like our military it's in need of an overhaul . building up our north would be a good project whether it needs to be a military project is the question...hiring all those recruits has many advantages and disadvantages but over the next 10 years it would be a wise decission to grow our military to over 100 to 120 k. but going to fast or recruiting to much to soon delutes the entire rank structure and it's quality....we need time to properly train and give them the time to earn the experience they need....before we throw a young 20 year old into the breach who may just hold your grand sons or dauthers life in his or her hands.... with small numbers we can afford and control quality, it becomes a major task when the numbers grow to large to fast.... But i do agree with you this nation does need or better yet screams for a larger military, i am not talking about a massive military but one that could respond to a national emergency and make a difference, or one that could ensure or foreign policy is looked after....then there is the defence of our nation.... If you mean could we stop a determined enemy from entering and claiming large sections of northern Canada....No With most of our Regular force troops tied into the Afghan mission, defence of our north has been delegated down to the reserves.... with some other reg force assets attached....Don't get me wrong i not trying to paint the reserves in a bad light , because that is not my intent, as they are good soldiers and can do the job, i just wanted to show you where the defence of the north sits with our government....one also has to remember that there is only 2 Brigade groups of reg force pers available to do anything in Canada, the other one is in Afghan or training for Afghan....and when you count bayonets thats not very many..... Okay, fair enough explanation. Let me run this by you then; begin a process of taking kids just out of high school on a volunteer basis and start training them up. Raw talent, boot camp them and send them north. Get some boots on the ground up there for starters. Initially the exercise will be lesson in logistics, creating a viable supply train to maintain the force structure up there. Once there, train these new recruits as tradesmen, electricians, framers, plumbers, masons, etc. just to build permanent operations bases, again stretching the supply chain and coordinating logistical efforts. You can get four years out of these folks and they could opt out with a profession when they leave, or the can elect to stay in. The more adventurous and capable ones can focus on more military training, and the best and the brightest of those can be drawn on as new officer material. What you get is a group of people trained in the north and living in the north that are full time military citizens. Its only a start, but with todays economic environment it gives kids somewhere to go and something to learn and itt provides a discipline they can draw on for the rest of their lives. What I am getting at is a large scale operation that will serve to put people into position to develop the north. We could look at what the Romans did, handing out land upon completion of service. I guess my point is that the north is a very important place and we need the politicians to be able to see it for what it is, the last frontier left in the nation. Quote
Bonam Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Not so easy, actually. Canada no longer has a major shipbuilding industry as in WW2. We do make some top-of-the-line experimental/deep diving submarines, though. But they're not the ticket. Actually we could make some aircraft carrying submarines. It's been done before. A fleet of nuclear submarines that can surface anywhere, without warning or detection, and launch a flight of aircraft would be quite a powerful military asset... Quote
Smallc Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Okay, fair enough explanation. Let me run this by you then; begin a process of taking kids just out of high school on a volunteer basis and start training them up. I don't think that such action would be constitutional, legal, wanted, or necessary. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 I don't think that such action would be constitutional, legal, wanted, or necessary. As long as they volunteer and have their grade 10 I see no problem with it. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 ...A fleet of nuclear submarines that can surface anywhere, without warning or detection, and launch a flight of aircraft would be quite a powerful military asset... They don't need to surface at all....Tomahawk cruise missiles have completed attack sorties for many years. Cheap compared to manned aircraft. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 As long as they volunteer and have their grade 10 I see no problem with it. As long as they volunteer, it's fine. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 I don't think that such action would be constitutional, legal, wanted, or necessary. Did you read where I said voluntary basis? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Sorry, I missed that somehow. There was this perfect guy once, nobody liked him. Eventually they put him on a stick and he died. We all make mistakes. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 ....the stick really did hurt though When you get older you get used to it. You eventually discover there is room for both of your feet in your mouth by complete accident. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) Okay, fair enough explanation. Let me run this by you then; begin a process of taking kids just out of high school on a volunteer basis and start training them up. Raw talent, boot camp them and send them north. Get some boots on the ground up there for starters. Sounds good on paper, but we are having problems not with recruiting itself (lots of kids want to join up)....but actually getting Soldiers and infra struture to train those recruits....and thats becoming a loosing battle just to train enough to keep up with those retiring.....during the 80's there was a great boon of recruits to flush out ranks when we still had close to 90 k within the military.....also keep in mind the avg age of todays soldier is 36 to 38....anyways all those guys now have well past 25 years service and are getting ready to retire, more and more each year....so even though we increase our recruiting efforts we still fall short....Top this off with most combat units now are well under thier peace time TO&E not only with equipment but also personal, this comes into effect when you have to draw SNR NCO's and officers to command this motly crew.... Initially the exercise will be lesson in logistics, creating a viable supply train to maintain the force structure up there Another problem the CF has mastered the art of logistics moving equipment around the globe, and the north, keeping CFS Alert supplied with basics such as fuel, food, and other supplies is a very costly adventure, everything has to be flown in, including fuel for generators and heat....thousands of gals of fuel are transported by herc once a year for serveral months....it cost more to fly it in than the other fuel is worth.....the entire operation i think is call operation boxtop, and i think it's on the DND web site for further reading....anyway we have the knowledge and expertise in logistics,what we are short on is the funding.... . Once there, train these new recruits as tradesmen, electricians, framers, plumbers, masons, etc. just to build permanent operations bases, again stretching the supply chain and coordinating logistical efforts. You can get four years out of these folks and they could opt out with a profession when they leave, or the can elect to stay in. CFS Alert is are most northern operational base and it's normal tour length is 6 months only because there is nothing there other than a military station, located on elsmere Island....stick a family up there for 4 years and your going to have a civil war with the wifes and family members kicking the crap out of military and taking over the base and turning it into Canada's most northern Martha stewart center of excellance.... Normal northern bases such as yellowknife, consider a city by northen standards is pretty sparse, for family related activities , shopping, etc etc....a noraml posting is 2 years there.....and it is considered a hard ship posting....which means the military pays our bonus pay just to entice troops to go...last time i was there was in the early 90's cost me 12 bucks for a hambuger, nearly 4 bucks for a coke.... I guess what i'm driving at, is life is pretty rough up there, and unless you make it more family friendly i don't think we will get those volunteers. and family friendly means major dollars.... Perhaps we all may be better off if they offer the same type of project to civilians vice the military.... Edited July 24, 2009 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Machjo Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 Now it looks like the government will soon be facing a new challenge. Last month saw deflation for the first time, and that's a good thing in that it gives the government some wiggle room to spend without threatening inflation. In fact, the government can even argue that it must increase spending to ward off further deflation. The problem though is with other news. We're now officially out of recession, which means that this deflationary bliss won't last long. Who knows, we might be back in inflation mode by next month and, if so, the government will have to shift from a recession mentality to a labour-shortage and inflation mentality (i.e.incrrease government revenue, decrease spending, or both). This doesn't bode well for the military if the government faces inflationary pressures, as spending cuts become an important strategic consideration to fight the labour shortages and inflation. And with all the money spent and debt accumulated over this recession, the threat of labour shortages and inflation will be very real in the coming months and year if the government doesn't play its cards right. After all, just as recession hurts the most vulnerable members of society the most, so inflation and high interest rates generally hurt the same people the most too, and people don't take too kindly to rising prices and interest rates, and labour shortages aren't good for businesses either. So it looks like the recessionary spending bliss will soon be over. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 (edited) Actually we could make some aircraft carrying submarines. It's been done before. A fleet of nuclear submarines that can surface anywhere, without warning or detection, and launch a flight of aircraft would be quite a powerful military asset... The Japanese had one that worked pretty well. They were to be used to attack the Panama canal locks, I think. Edited July 26, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 All fear the mighty Canadian nuclear aircraft sub. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 All fear the mighty Canadian nuclear aircraft sub. Here's the Japanese model: I-400 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Here's the Japanese model: I-400http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine Hmm they may need an upgrade or we could start from scratch. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Hmm they may need an upgrade or we could start from scratch. It's an old machine...but the Japanese made very good submarines and their Type 93 Long Lance torpedo was one of the most feared weapons of WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 It's an old machine...but the Japanese made very good submarines and their Type 93 Long Lance torpedo was one of the most feared weapons of WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo Cool so were do we buy them? The Museum? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 You laugh. But the Type 93 probably killed 50,000+ Allied soldiers/sailors. Obviously not one of your family members, though. Nobody is suggesting we buy them. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 You laugh. But the Type 93 probably killed 50,000+ Allied soldiers/sailors. Obviously not one of your family members, though. Nobody is suggesting we buy them. I laugh about everything but I didn't realize they killed that many soldiers. None of my family were in either of the wars they bitched out. I have huge respect for the soldiers that fought in the wars though. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.