Jump to content

Royal Canadian Navy doesn't need new ships


Thorn

Recommended Posts

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.

I don't doubt the americans will have the capability but it's an assumption to believe all their ships would have that capability without an extensive retrofit...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't doubt the americans will have the capability but it's an assumption to believe all their ships would have that capability without an extensive retrofit...

I agree there, not all the ships need to be, but I would think that a dedicated cold water fleet would be part of the plan, you can't plan to project power globally without the capability of actually going globally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

The US primarily, which you implicitly agreed was a possibility when you replied...

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?

The reference that has you chasing your tail originated here.

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.

So...please 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.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there, not all the ships need to be, but I would think that a dedicated cold water fleet would be part of the plan, you can't plan to project power globally without the capability of actually going globally.

There isn't really any need for most of the world to project force north of Iceland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there, not all the ships need to be, but I would think that a dedicated cold water fleet would be part of the plan, you can't plan to project power globally without the capability of actually going globally.

I don't believe canada's navy is as cold water capable as it should be, I think it's ability to operate in pack ice isn't there...the coast guard does that, which I find a strange omission... Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point. The Coast Guard definitely would have the cold water vessels.

I believe the idea is the Navy operates mostly in open water while the CG operates in closer to shore where there is thick winter ice...if the government is serious about claiming arctic sovereignty either our CG needs to be armed or the navy needs real ice breaking capabilities to operate in the arctic NWP...otherwise it's all a waste of time and they're throwing away money posturing just to please the pro military crowd...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor poor Eyeball....take another med little buddy...hang in there...the demons swirling around your tiny little brain will soon grow exhausted ....

Like I said pal, who or where are the demons that we need to spend billions to protect ourselves us from? China you say?

Couldn't we just prevent that by not selling them the resources they need to build their invasion fleet in the first place? But then you'd be insulting anyone who suggested that as being a communist enemy of Canada some such thing. You're always out to lunch no matter what time of day it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said pal, who or where are the demons that we need to spend billions to protect ourselves us from? China you say?

Couldn't we just prevent that by not selling them the resources they need to build their invasion fleet in the first place? But then you'd be insulting anyone who suggested that as being a communist enemy of Canada some such thing. You're always out to lunch no matter what time of day it is.

it's way past idiotic, china has never been an imperialistic power...wars/invasions are hideously expensive and the cost is unrecoverable it's far easier to buy resources you want, canada is open to business with china and only to happy to sell, we've already sold china a chunk of alberta's oilsands...there was one chinese diplomat recently who said "we don't want to kill you, we want to do business with you"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's way past idiotic, china has never been an imperialistic power...wars/invasions are hideously expensive and the cost is unrecoverable it's far easier to buy resources you want, canada is open to business with china and only to happy to sell, we've already sold china a chunk of alberta's oilsands...there was one chinese diplomat recently who said "we don't want to kill you, we want to do business with you"...

That doesn't address China's blue sea ambitions...or the reason why they wish to project the kind of power an aircraft carrier exerts...nor will that comfort India and Pakistan (and Tibet) who have come to arms with China.

Now I suppose for the myopic, the only reason to have a navy is to thwart an invasion...again, that is a moo point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...there was one chinese diplomat recently who said "we don't want to kill you, we want to do business with you"...

Ironically so much of that business is killing so many jobs in the west that additional billions will now need to be spent to crack down and and get tough on all the dispossessed and pissed off people - many of whom it seems are bound to eventually react violently when they reach their breaking point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't address China's blue sea ambitions...or the reason why they wish to project the kind of power an aircraft carrier exerts...nor will that comfort India and Pakistan (and Tibet) who have come to arms with China.

Now I suppose for the myopic, the only reason to have a navy is to thwart an invasion...again, that is a moo point

True enough I suppose given how our allies have so often used theirs to conduct invasions.

Could it be that China is simply motivated by their fear of our ambitions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough I suppose given how our allies have so often used theirs to conduct invasions.

Could it be that China is simply motivated by their fear of our ambitions?

china has one "training carrier" :rolleyes: the US has 11 carrier fleets...ya those chinese really seem hellbent on global domination...china's only objective is controlling/protecting it's own costal waters...seeing it from their viewpoint the most imperialistic aggressive nation on the planet has carrier fleets constantly of it's coast, it should come as surprise they want to counter that threat...we've paranoid forum members wanting us to counter a chinese threat that doesn't exist and go into a panic because the chinese have ONE training carrier...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

china has one "training carrier" :rolleyes: the US has 11 carrier fleets...ya those chinese really seem hellbent on global domination...china's only objective is controlling/protecting it's own costal waters...seeing it from their viewpoint the most imperialistic aggressive nation on the planet has carrier fleets constantly of it's coast, it should come as surprise they want to counter that threat...we've paranoid forum members wanting us to counter a chinese threat that doesn't exist and go into a panic because the chinese have ONE training carrier...

And what exactly would they be using a carrier to "train" for, other than to use fully operational carriers? China has territorial disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines, to name a couple.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

china has one "training carrier" :rolleyes: the US has 11 carrier fleets...ya those chinese really seem hellbent on global domination...china's only objective is controlling/protecting it's own costal waters...seeing it from their viewpoint the most imperialistic aggressive nation on the planet has carrier fleets constantly of it's coast, it should come as surprise they want to counter that threat...we've paranoid forum members wanting us to counter a chinese threat that doesn't exist and go into a panic because the chinese have ONE training carrier...

This doesn't make sense! China had NO carriers and not much of a navy. NOW she has a carrier, albeit a modest one and a respectable number of naval vessels. She is in the process of building more.

Doesn't this indicate, er...um....eh....what's the word? Oh yeah, a TREND? Now why would they want to do such a thing?

As for defending ourselves by boycotting them with our resources so they can't build anything to attack us, I didn't realize that our country had an exclusive monopoly on such resources! Other countries must cry in their beer every night that they are unable to compete with us. Canada is enjoying a HUGE balance of trade difference with every other country in the world! My God, are we rich or what?

If a kid in your neighbourhood starts to walk around with a baseball bat, is it paranoia to worry a might? Especially when he has not always been the nicest kid? Is it not only prudent to take at least a few small steps to defend yourself?

You know what they call the kids who don't, who simply assume the kid is always going to be nice?

"Whacked in the head!" That's what they call them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya but Canada's waters are probably colder and more difficult...Iceland has the gulf stream keeping it warm-er...

I find this entire line of discussion to be silly, frankly. The US navy was principally designed to operate in the North Atlantic, the same as ours. Our navy doesn't go north much, and neither does theirs. But if a cold water ability is seen as important than I'm sure the US has as much, if not more than we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

china has one "training carrier" :rolleyes: the US has 11 carrier fleets..

The Chinese have one carrier TODAY and their military budget keeps growing by double digits every years. The US has 11 carriers TODAY but that will likely be down to about 5 in five or six years as budget cuts hit. Eventually, if the Republicans win the white house, they'll be down to rowboats as income taxes are slashed again and the US goes into bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chinese have one carrier TODAY and their military budget keeps growing by double digits every years. The US has 11 carriers TODAY but that will likely be down to about 5 in five or six years as budget cuts hit. Eventually, if the Republicans win the white house, they'll be down to rowboats as income taxes are slashed again and the US goes into bankruptcy.

it took them 14 yrs to get the ship to a point where it was ready for sea trials, and the ship was 70% complete when they purchased it, oh ya thye're a real threat to global domination :rolleyes:

and the americans are planning 6 newer bigger more powerful carriers than they have now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chinese have one carrier TODAY and their military budget keeps growing by double digits every years.

Right....if I have $5 and it doubles...I will have $10! The Chinese Shi Lang carrier is actually the resurrected hulk and Russian/Soviet era Varyag. Without supporting elements and tactics, all it is right now is a big fat target for the US Navy.

The US has 11 carriers TODAY but that will likely be down to about 5 in five or six years as budget cuts hit. Eventually, if the Republicans win the white house, they'll be down to rowboats as income taxes are slashed again and the US goes into bankruptcy.

Dream on...that is not going to happen. The US will keep a minimum force structure that leverages modernization of surface, sub-surface, and airborne assets. Example: The Chinese and Pakistanis are still examining the "stealth helo" used in the Bin Laden assassination....wondering how the hell those damn 'merkins did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what exactly would they be using a carrier to "train" for, other than to use fully operational carriers? China has territorial disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines, to name a couple.

...where is it written that countries can't protect it's territorial claims? the US is free to do so but no other country?...absurd logic...china can't protect it's claims without being called a threat to us meanwhile the US disputes our territorial claims but it is not a threat?
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'd think that US Nimitz, didn't even have airconditioning originally for the Persian Gulf Operations, so realize the military doesn't think like non governmental civil planners..

Edited by William Ashley
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...