Jump to content

Royal Canadian Navy doesn't need new ships


Thorn

Recommended Posts

The government is about to embark on a huge ship building exercise to re-equip the Royal Canadian Navy. There is no question the navy needs new ships, but current events indicate that building new ones is uneeded and far more expensive than purchasing existing warships from other nations. The British navy is in the process of downsizing, and while I'll be the first to admit we screwed up in buying the submarines from the brits they have some very nice surface ships. More importantly, the United States Navy is very likely to soon undergo a massive and immediate downsizing. Entire aircraft carrier battlegroups will need to be mothballed and all their crews furloughed, or laid off.

The requirement under the recently passed debt ceiling raise is that a super committee of six democrats and six republicans agree on how to find trillions in deficit reduction by thanksgiving. Since all six Republican members have vowed to oppose even one cent of new taxes it's unlikely a deal will be reached and passed by congress. When the committee fails, half a trillion in military spending will have to be cut. That means lots of ships, planes and military vehicles will be on the market at cut rate prices. Now the inclination will be for the Americans to mothball their older units first, but if there is the possibility of selling some that could be reconsidered. And really, so many ships will have to be scrapped that there are bound to be a lot of excellent quality, fairly new ships we can buy for the RCN. We could pick up a lot of army gear while we're at it, including trucks and personnel carriers, for far less than buying them new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Who says outdated? The US military has been swimming in cash the last couple of decades. I bet the average age of their frigates and destroyers is a hell of a lot closer to 'new' than old.

They won't be decommissioning the average...they will decommission the oldest.

In the case of destroyers...that 20 years old while the frigates are over 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They won't be decommissioning the average...they will decommission the oldest.

In the case of destroyers...that 20 years old while the frigates are over 30 years.

I know we have newer frigates and perhaps a destroyer, Morris. Still, knowing the previous governments they probably didn't spend any more than they had to in frills.

Is it possible that these older decommissioned ships would be more powerful and/or versatile than what we have now?

Even if they are, what's the point when right now at least half of our fleet is always docked, for lack of manpower and budget for fuel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we have newer frigates and perhaps a destroyer, Morris. Still, knowing the previous governments they probably didn't spend any more than they had to in frills.

Is it possible that these older decommissioned ships would be more powerful and/or versatile than what we have now?

Even if they are, what's the point when right now at least half of our fleet is always docked, for lack of manpower and budget for fuel?

Speaking of what's the point...anyone else notice that just about anyone capable of invading us is mothballing their fleet right now?

Doh...

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of what's the point...anyone else notice that just about anyone capable of invading us is mothballing their fleet right now?

Doh...

No I haven't noticed anyone mothballing their fleets.

The british are adding 9 new vessels...the US is adding newer Aircraft carriers, destroyers...the Chinese are conducting sea trials on their first aircraft carrier...

Was it in a dream this idea came to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I haven't noticed anyone mothballing their fleets.

The british are adding 9 new vessels...the US is adding newer Aircraft carriers, destroyers...the Chinese are conducting sea trials on their first aircraft carrier...

Was it in a dream this idea came to you?

No, but the fact that these countries are either flat broke or filled with so many poor people did. By the way, I thought these were our allies, so why on Earth would they want to invade us?

Is it because they're broke and filled with poor people? Hah, now I see where you're going with this but I just can't decide if you're being cynical or paranoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that these older decommissioned ships would be more powerful and/or versatile than what we have now?

Trying to replace what you have now with yesterday's platforms and capabilities is not wise. The US Navy has morphed into multi-role missions that emphasize operations in the littorals, not grand set piece battles from blue water. That means intel collection and precision attack, often unmanned.

How are those used diesel boats doing these days? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some comments.

1. The US puts their usable ships into "mothball" fleets in event of a "real war", you know one that isn't a kitty picking invasion that they use air superiority to win, and ground forces for the occupation and overthrow of the civil government.

2. The Navy plans have been ongoing for serveral years, and in part are to boost horribly lagging ship production capacities of the few remaining Canadian Shipyards. 40 Billion is a lot of money though.

Personally I do support new ships but my Naval policy is primarily to create merchant marine ships that are able to accept modular upgrades. Concentration would be on hulls of ships and their core operating needs such as propulsion. Then the ships would be used for fishing as trawlers, for a few ferry routes I feel would be useful, cruiseline operations etc.. Since Canada in the event of normal US/Nato operations is primarily supply and that is what the CF is trained for, conversion of shipping to Litoral (or naval invasion such as for the Asian-Pacific Campaign Strategy) is a little backward since it is unrealistic for the CF to be expected to act like marines do if they only have light infantry and a few specialists. Its also that the only two-three SOF units to be used in a marine beachhead establishment or to deploy them to naval ships if they are normally air deployed. It is doable none the less I think the money is just a slush over to the shipyards, and that will filter back to Israeli and US steel companies etc.. and it might trickle back to Canada because those companies are buying out Canadian operations. Thing is though I'd like to see stuff like Baffin and Ring of Fire used for steel production not steel imports. The whole program is just wrong for the Canadian view IMO. The navy will get what they asked for though, but I think the program is just not well thought out in a global spread, for Canadian purposes. I think that there is too much focus injection spending, when a long term plan that generates income needs to be implemented. Tax Payer burdon should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Missles and railguns are where it is at for "defence" Nukes are where it is at for offence. Screw the occupation, they the enemy end them.

Differing Culture or socialism shouldn't be seen as an act of war though.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but the fact that these countries are either flat broke or filled with so many poor people did. By the way, I thought these were our allies, so why on Earth would they want to invade us?

Is it because they're broke and filled with poor people? Hah, now I see where you're going with this but I just can't decide if you're being cynical or paranoid.

agreed paranoia runs wild, critical thinking isn't a requirement for many here...

my retired navy bro-in-law tells me that we can't just buy any ship, Canada has specific design requirements due to the cold waters(ice) and temps our navy operate in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed paranoia runs wild, critical thinking isn't a requirement for many here...

my retired navy bro-in-law tells me that we can't just buy any ship, Canada has specific design requirements due to the cold waters(ice) and temps our navy operate in...

I think that kind of thing would be built into any ship any navy builds. Canada is not the only country with these requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but the fact that these countries are either flat broke or filled with so many poor people did. By the way, I thought these were our allies, so why on Earth would they want to invade us?

Is it because they're broke and filled with poor people? Hah, now I see where you're going with this but I just can't decide if you're being cynical or paranoid.

Does that mean you are retracting your statement about mothballing fleets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might consider it after you explain why we should be so afraid that our BFF's might want to invade us that we should spend billions of dollars on our military to deter or prevent them.

Maybe you would rather explain then who you were referring to:

Speaking of what's the point...anyone else notice that just about anyone capable of invading us is mothballing their fleet right now?

Doh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that kind of thing would be built into any ship any navy builds. Canada is not the only country with these requirements.

you would be wrong...few countries operate in the extreme conditions that Canada does, it requires extra design costs...even the american ships are mostly a warm water navy...I don't doubt my bro-laws word on this he spent 25yrs as technical engineer in our navy..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might consider it after you explain why we should be so afraid that our BFF's might want to invade us that we should spend billions of dollars on our military to deter or prevent them.

and none of our BFF's forever are capable of it, the exception being the USA... and if the USA were to do so we're powerless to stop them short of using nukes which we don't have...

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you would be wrong...few countries operate in the extreme conditions that Canada does, it requires extra design costs...even the american ships are mostly a warm water navy...I don't doubt my bro-laws word on this he spent 25yrs as technical engineer in our navy..

It was an assumption. If you want to project sea power around the world, you'd want to account for the possibility of cold waters as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...