military expenditures

[xul]

In America's case, they have a seperate branch for this (Coast Guard)...so that the Navy is free to do its actual duty.

American should not suppose every head in the world has an American brain like each computer having a Microsoft OS. I think Smallc is right. Most navies in the world maily do the jobs like the Coast Guard of US because their countries don't have the ambition to rule the world.(Even if some of them have, their economy just can not afford to support such kind of ambition.)

American thinks Canada(and other NATO members) should have some armament which could match American Armed Forces because American treats NATO as its tool to support American strategic intentions---which are ambitious, worldwide, war-concomitant and riskful. On the other hand, other numbers of NATO joined the organization just because of the Soviet sthreat at the time. After Brezhnev kind had gone to their graves, these numbers now more focus on their own backyard than on America's goal. They still remained in NATO just because they anticipated America, the only superpower remained after the Cold War, would be more successful and they thus could take some advantage from the success, by a burden-free, risk-free way. That's what their national interests lies on. By the way, American also doesn't put NATO's business as its first priority. Iraq for one, if NATO gets in the way of American national interests, America will also kick it off the road, so no one should take the blame of selfishness.

As for those Canadan subs, though they have got somewhat old, but they are still useful for Canadian Navy destroyers doing some ASW drills. Even if there was a war, though I can't help to think out which kind of war or skirmish Canada might be possiblely involved in nowadays would need subs, those old conventional subs would still be useful because in history, subs were mainly used to attack enemy cargo ships, not warships and subs like in computer games.

[Army Guy]

I'm not a navy guy,so i'm basing this on my opion and a little research... and while we did get a somewhat deal on those subs we purchased from the mother country, it, been 10 years in the making,and not much to show for it .... with a few more to go...before we can use them for any intended purpose...and when you add up all the repair costs and the time in which they are not in use, And the fact that at the time new Subs were not on the radar, in fact they still are not on the radar in regards to equipment that is much more needed...

Today there are other options available for much better tech , one of the main arguments that pro sub purchasers have made is having subs keeps Canada in the sub bussiness and we don't lose any of that experiance...true enough but we could have still maintained our sub program with the old subs, still maintained our limited sov patrols, and waited....and maintained our NATO sub training , and providing the US with diesels to target practice on....

Germany has a very nice sub the type 212A and the 214 made up of the latest tech , even with an alternative fuel cell tech....Germany has had some problems with it's other european sub manufacture and is resulting in the closing of that facility...that combined with greece refusing to except already built 214 for it's navy....sounds like an oportunity...or a door atleast opened a crack...

one to upgrade into a state of the art dies? AIP sub,.... next getting into AIP tech at the ground floor could be benificial for Canada, it's green, and if perfected could be a cheaper solution than say Nuk power subs....Germans are looking for another country to partner up with in regards to building Subs...we've all but lost our ship building experience , this could spark more benifits for canada's failing ship building industry....albiet only a few nations are lined up to purchase the 212 , 214 subs....we could atleast build our own, here...it's an option not the best option , but it ranks right up there with buying rusted hulls off the British....

[bush_cheney2004]

American should not suppose every head in the world has an American brain like each computer having a Microsoft OS. I think Smallc is right. Most navies in the world maily do the jobs like the Coast Guard of US because their countries don't have the ambition to rule the world.(Even if some of them have, their economy just can not afford to support such kind of ambition.)

That's because the Americans, like the British before them, are doing the job of keeping shipping communications and trade routes open. Other navies, including Canada's, join in this effort even if you don't want to admit it.

As for those Canadan subs, though they have got somewhat old, but they are still useful for Canadian Navy destroyers doing some ASW drills. Even if there was a war, though I can't help to think out which kind of war or skirmish Canada might be possiblely involved in nowadays would need subs, those old conventional subs would still be useful because in history, subs were mainly used to attack enemy cargo ships, not warships and subs like in computer games.

This is a very false notion....there are two kinds of ships.....submarines...and targets.

See ARA General Belgrano:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

Edited February 24, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Not to mention there are numerous excellent submarine simulators out there that do a fairly accurate job at showing the tactics involved.

[xul]

That's because the Americans, like the British before them, are doing the job of keeping shipping communications and trade routes open.

There is a Chinese saying, "when the heaven falls, the tallest one will bear it." Nowadays US is the tallest, so it has to bear the heaviest burden when it takes advantages from being the only superpower.

Other navies, including Canada's, join in this effort even if you don't want to admit it.

I admit it unless you told me that American had told them that they could take the advantage from the membership of NATO without need of paying for it.

On the other hand, they, I mean their political leaders, just want to do as few as possible. Each of main members of NATO have the GDP over 1/5~1/10 the GDP of US. If they want to share the burden of America proportionally with the GDP, each of them should have 1~2 aircraft carriers, 6~12 nuclear subs....etc. But which of them spends so many on their military?

there are two kinds of ships.....submarines...and targets.

But a wise captain of a sub can chose his target, and that's why a sub needs a human captain and human mariners to handle it not some robotic simulators instead.

[xul]

Not to mention there are numerous excellent submarine simulators out there that do a fairly accurate job at showing the tactics involved.

Simulators are useful tools and sometimes they can be more useful for they can simulate some extreme circumstances such as sinking and crash that the crew can not be trained on real subs and planes. On the other hand, simulators can not instead real subs and planes because there are too many uncertainties in a battle and there also are some realms which our scientists, researchers and engineers have never set foot in before so they can not be simulated.

Edited February 25, 2010 by xul

[DogOnPorch]

I agree...but anyone who has tried one knows that the nice fat oil tanker is target #1...unless you have a nice fat carrier in the crosshairs.

Edited February 25, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Mr.Canada]

I want to see many of these "social programs" for "new" Canadians cut ( I wonder what was wrong with the old Canadians but nevermind that). These "new" Canadians should pay their own way. If they can't they shouldn't be allowed to leech off the rest of us like a parasite. Bottom line, if you can't pay you can't stay in Canada.

With all that savings perhaps we will be able to afford some decent equipment for our forces so they can stop being the laughing stock of the world's defence community.

We need a war industry here in Canada. We need to make our own tanks, ships ,subs, guns ,ammo camo, helicopters. Everything. This will create a lot of jobs and instill a measure of national pride to Canada which is sorely lacking in today's world.

[Smallc]

With all that savings perhaps we will be able to afford some decent equipment for our forces so they can stop being the laughing stock of the world's defence community.

They haven't ever been that. They're equipment was looked down upon, but that's not the case now. Like usual, you're just spouting nonsense.

Are we the laughingstock of the world in Haiti?....in Afghanistan?

[M.Dancer]

We need a war industry here in Canada. We need to make our own tanks, ships ,subs, guns ,ammo camo, helicopters. Everything. This will create a lot of jobs and instill a measure of national pride to Canada which is sorely lacking in today's world.

We need more intelligent posters.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is a Chinese saying, "when the heaven falls, the tallest one will bear it." Nowadays US is the tallest, so it has to bear the heaviest burden when it takes advantages from being the only superpower.

The US "bears it" because Sea Power is key to open commerce and the projection of power around the world. US is the "tallest" because of this capability, not the other way around.

I admit it unless you told me that American had told them that they could take the advantage from the membership of NATO without need of paying for it.

Canada's frigates routinely deploy as part of other task forces, with and without NATO mandate. See Combined Task Force 150.

On the other hand, they, I mean their political leaders, just want to do as few as possible. Each of main members of NATO have the GDP over 1/5~1/10 the GDP of US. If they want to share the burden of America proportionally with the GDP, each of them should have 1~2 aircraft carriers, 6~12 nuclear subs....etc. But which of them spends so many on their military?

No...NATO is specifically configured to not replicate all capabilities in the face of such costs and GDP limits.

But a wise captain of a sub can chose his target, and that's why a sub needs a human captain and human mariners to handle it not some robotic simulators instead.

Yet US submarine crews are trained and certified on "robotic simulators"....for obvious reasons.

[DogOnPorch]

That's because the Americans, like the British before them, are doing the job of keeping shipping communications and trade routes open. Other navies, including Canada's, join in this effort even if you don't want to admit it.

This is a very false notion....there are two kinds of ships.....submarines...and targets.

See ARA General Belgrano:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

Speaking of the Belgrano....

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/25/argentina-falklands.html

[Moonbox]

No...NATO is specifically configured to not replicate all capabilities in the face of such costs and GDP limits.

Which is as it should be, but does it not seem odd that the US has 10+ super carriers out on the water and no other country anywhere even has one?

*shrug*

It makes no difference to me either way as I trust the USA's navy to keep the seas safe but I do personally feel you guys bear most of the burden. You don't seem to mind though!

Edited February 26, 2010 by Moonbox

[DogOnPorch]

Which is as it should be, but does it not seem odd that the US has 10+ super carriers out on the water and no other country anywhere even has one?

*shrug*

It makes no difference to me either way as I trust the USA's navy to keep the seas safe but I do personally feel you guys bear most of the burden. You don't seem to mind though!

Well that's a load o' crapolla.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/

[bush_cheney2004]

Which is as it should be, but does it not seem odd that the US has 10+ super carriers out on the water and no other country anywhere even has one?

Not at all....the USA does not "chop" all resources to NATO, maintaining separate CINCs and coordinated objectives. Even in a deployed carrier group on a NATO mission, there is a mix of NATO and US "birds". Same deal for air/ground assets in Afghanistan.

It makes no difference to me either way as I trust the USA's navy to keep the seas safe but I do personally feel you guys bear most of the burden. You don't seem to mind though!

It matters for power projection on a globe that is 70% water. China has finally figured this out.

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed...

AVG/CVE-1 USS Long Island is still my favorite. Plucky li'l ship.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/001.htm

Used around Guadalcanal during some dark times.

[Oleg Bach]

Not at all....the USA does not "chop" all resources to NATO, maintaining separate CINCs and coordinated objectives. Even in a deployed carrier group on a NATO mission, there is a mix of NATO and US "birds". Same deal for air/ground assets in Afghanistan.

It matters for power projection on a globe that is 70% water. China has finally figured this out.

Thats 72.55% water, for accuracy sake..so China took the time to look out and see water did they?

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats 72.55% water, for accuracy sake..so China took the time to look out and see water did they?

....and we're adding more water each day according to the warming wizards. The Great Wall won't help anymore for defense, but it is a Great Tourist Attraction.

[Oleg Bach]

....and we're adding more water each day according to the warming wizards. The Great Wall won't help anymore for defense, but it is a Great Tourist Attraction.

You are going for the cheap bait..use to be you would only respond if I stuck a shrimp on the hook with a bit of butter and garlic. So you wanna talk about the weather hugh? Has anybody stuck a stick in New York harbor to see if the water level is up..did anyone account for evaporation regarding melting ice? Maybe it's the Vodka companies that have taken the ice away and now it is ingested like flouride.

[DogOnPorch]

Getting to be happy-hour(s) in Oleg's time zone, I see.

[Oleg Bach]

Getting to be happy-hour(s) in Oleg's time zone, I see.

Learning one thing today and that is how to disrespect you. You should take it into serious consideration if being a doink will benefit yourself? If having a bit of chocolate icecream is a happy hour - then so be it...one who seeks out the weakness of other other than the strength..is called a predator. Seen your type before and I am not impressed..I suppose if I had a mole on my chin you would concentrate on that and over look the rest of me.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh dear...disrespect from Oleg.

Manson is a pretty nice guy minus the cult-death-murder part. Fool was I to concentrate on this aspect of his character.

[xul]

Before discussing the issue of which kind of weaponry that the Canadian Armed Forces shold have, I think people should define what kind of missions or tasks that Canadian demand the CF to fulfill.

In my understanding, the missions or tasks includes two separate parts, though sometimes and in some aspects, they overlap each other.

The first and foremost task is, just as Smallc said, sovereignty protection. Since Canada has not enemies but some small neighbours(except Russia but its military strength is counteracted by US and its economy is still under recovery so its threat also can be considered as equivalent small by Canadian) which have some boundary disputes with Canada nowadays, these kind of tasks demand the CF to build some peculiar or "abnormal" weapons such as the so-called icebreaker cruisers the CPCanada boss promised when he was running for the election.

Though some Canadian military fan-boys or fan-girls may be little disappointed and think it is a fantasy that the CF equips those one thousand tonnage ships with 25mm machine guns, but actually the CF has made a correct choise if these ships are for such kind of mission. You can not use 100mm cannons on your neighbour's fishing boats and sink them by only one shot. In these cases, the 25mm guns are the proper weanpons when you have no choice but open fire.(The function of these guns is like the function of stun guns in police.Its purpose is to stop the target not kill it.)

Of course, normal weanpons are also needed in the mission, just for in case any of these sovereignty disputes escalating to a war or a skirmish, the Falklands War for one. And Canadian should understand, if Canadian went into such kind of wars or skirmishes, Canada had to stand alone, like UK in the Falklands War or Portugal in the 1961 India Annexation of Goa. The membership of NATO will not help Canada for such kind of skirmish.

The second task is the NATO duty. NATO is not a charge-free club and Canadian has to pay some membership-fee to it. Fortunately, some equipments NATO demands also can be used for the first task, just for in case there would be a war or skirmish caused by the sovereignty debates.

I think there also are a bit needs eyeing on the future. Maybe Americans laugh at the claimation which Smallc made before that Canada is also a superpower in the world, but the fact is Canada do have the potential becoming a superpower, just for its territory and natural resources fit being a superpower. Don't forget a superpower mostly used to be made by fortune rather than its own planning or endeavour. Who knows that one day the global warming things might heat the earth up and north Canada would become as warm as California meanwhile California become as hot as Somalia, so all American most brilliant professors, doctors, scientists, engineers.....and of course the CEOs of all sorts of war factories had to migrate to Canada, just for avoid sunstroke?

Edited February 27, 2010 by xul

[Smallc]

the claimation which Smallc made before that Canada is also a superpower in the world,

I didn't say that. I said that we were an economic superpower.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh dear...disrespect from Oleg.

Manson is a pretty nice guy minus the cult-death-murder part. Fool was I to concentrate on this aspect of his character.

Asking an actor who played Santa if I was bothering him-- or if he disapproved of me? He told me that calling me an irritation was like calling Hitler a mere trouble maker.

You know I could never disrespect anyone for real..nor can I muster up true hatred. I can try but it is never really that convincing.