Royal Canadian Navy doesn't need new ships

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Canada does more than its share on Nato missions while many other nato countries refuse to do jack shit.

Depends on the mission...Canada can't do certain things because it had starved its military for years. PM Harper is fixing that.

[wyly]

Who said countries can't protect their territorial claims? If a country decides to claim your territory, whatcha going to do about it. China's territorial claims will be what China decides they are, not us. Their ability to enforce those claims should not be ignored.

why should china's claims be any less valid than ours?...what moral or ethical right do we have to deny their territorial claims?...we should we care?...what does china's territorial claims have to do with our military buildup?...china has made no claim on our territory that the usa hasn't already made, that being the NWP is an international waterway...

[Oleg Bach]

Good to see Canada regain some dignity and class - Royal is what we are. The armed forces are pitiful - they remind me of a symbolic defence mechanizm that could be destroyed in a day...If we are truely loyal and royal - we had better get a real military. There should be one stipulation in regards to our marshall class - that not one good man or woman be wasted by being cut down for some useless cause..based in fraud...People are not keen on having their sons and daughters enlist -because there is the great possiblity that they will die for no reason...as we have just seen in our misadventure in Afgahistan...To gain public trust again - we should never again kill our own and call it a 'sacrafice' - animals are sacraficed not human beings - and even the sacrafical rights regarding animals - is based in dull minded superstition.

[Oleg Bach]

Depends on the mission...Canada can't do certain things because it had starved its military for years. PM Harper is fixing that.

Step back and mind your own buisness - or come across the boarder and become a Canadian citizen. Seems you have an interest and a desire to belong...so welcome aboard if you wish.

[bush_cheney2004]

Step back and mind your own buisness - or come across the boarder and become a Canadian citizen. Seems you have an interest and a desire to belong...so welcome aboard if you wish.

Nope....I don't play the dual citizen game. Much more popular for Canadians.....around the world.

[William Ashley]

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.

Hi,

How did project power globally fit into this discussion about Canadian ships?

Canada only ends up with Enemies the US makes for Canada.

where else will these cold water boats go?

And suddenly Caribbean Cruises for the Royal Canadian Navy are drawn back as skeleton crew boats head for the high seas of the arctic circle to liaise with Russians.

Edited August 17, 2011 by William Ashley

[Rue]

Mr. Ashley you asked: "How did project power globally fit into this discussion about Canadian ships?"

I am not sure what you are getting at but at the present time the Canadian Navy is not operational. It has no destroyers capable of patrolling both its large coasts. It has 4 destroyers. One is rusted and non functional. Another is cannabalized for parts. Another two creek about. Do the math.

The Canadian Navy should have a minimum of 4 destroyers per coast in my opinion and a minimum of 2-5 fully functional sub-marines per coast operating at all times.

Also don't forget its submarines are crippled and it only has one fuel resupply ship that functions.

This does not even touch the smaller ships it would need nor additional new helicopters we need for search and rescue.

Right now anyone can bring terrorists, illegal immigrants and smugglers at will into Canada's uncontrolled coastal areas not to mention depleting our fisheries.

We have gone from the world's third largest Navy to one of its smallest and we are the second largest geographic country in the world with cast coastal areas in the Pacific, Atlantic and Artic abandon.

Harper can call the navy Royal and give it navy blue blazers instead of green polyester suits but it won't change the above facts.

Nor does it change the fact we have an aging F-18 fleet in need of replacement and had a closed tender to purchase a one engine fighter designed for low ground warfare when what we needed is a two engined higher altitude longer range interceptor to patrol. I would have gone with more craft from the French or Swedish rather than the popular consortium Canada has bought into but I can understand why it did. At least it has recognized it has to retrofit the air force.

However we have a shortage of sailors insufficient to man the boats we have.

The Army was stretched to its functional limit and had no hercules aircraft to transport itself.

We rely on the volunteer kindness of Northern aboriginals to go out in their small boats and act as spotters for us when the Russians and U.S.

criss cross our North flaunting our sovereign claims.

Hell we had no Navy to repel the Spanish, Portugese, Chinese, Japanese, Russians from destroying our fisheries ecosystem.

Bottom line we have the second largest nation in the world. It means hundreds of nations seek to access our oceans to abstract fish and other resources if we don't do something about it and it will take a lot more then a retro brand name fix.

You also stated:

"Canada only ends up with Enemies the US makes for Canada."

With due respect that's a crock.

Canada has benefitted from both the US Coast Guard and Navy engaging in dangerous operations to save Canadians at sea because we had insufficient rescue services able to do the job.

For years we lived with the benefit of having the U.S. Navy and Air Force patrol off our coasts especially during the cold war.

You can afford to be cocky when you sit next to the U.S. and take its protection for granted.

Canada has ben close friends with countries not friendly to the US. We also managed to piss of China while the US at the same time sucked up to China.

For years our foreign policy often has conflicted with the US in regards to who we support and how much in terms of foreign aid.

If Canada makes enemies it begins and ends with our decision making no one else's.

Nothing stops us from having a distinct foreign policy. Nothing. If Harper chooses the foreign policy he does,its because a Canadian decides not an American.

Tell me where do any of us get off trying to suggest we suffer from our relationship with the US when 85% of all our business gets traded to Americans? Who tells Canada to be so dependent on the U.S.?

If we are dependent on the U.S. its because we lack the balls to invest in our own country and divest our economy.

As well this notion we are supposed to be the world's friend is absolutely nauseating for me. This notion we must be the world's nice guy loved by all to me is a phony Canadian affectation started by Lester Pearson.

What you think people don't genuinely dislike you or me around the world because they detest our Canadian moral values?

You think our multi culturalism that tolerates new Canadians resisting assimilation and demanding tolerance of their beliefs while rejecting everyone else's fosters friends?

Give me a break. We have made ourselves a laughing stock precisely because we have tried to be everyone's friend and have rendered ourselves a joke organized drug and people smugglers and illegals who come to benefit from our medical and social welfare systems and leave after they have sucked us for all they can get.

If you think being anti American will suddenly make everyone in the world love us think again.

The U.S. has been our closest ally. To say it causes us enemies is a crock.

No one forced us to Afghanistan. No one forced us to Korea. Where were you when we disagreed with the US over foreign policy anyways?

By the way you stated:

"The defence minister is dating an Iranian for crying out loud.."

I believe she is Canadian. Her ethnicity is of no relevance. The only relevance to her being Iranian is that Iranian women are beautiful.

You being Canadian seem to be making cheap shots at fellow Canadians. What next do you want to blame that cheap shot on the U.S.?

Edited August 17, 2011 by Rue

[Wilber]

why should china's claims be any less valid than ours?...what moral or ethical right do we have to deny their territorial claims?...we should we care?...what does china's territorial claims have to do with our military buildup?...china has made no claim on our territory that the usa hasn't already made, that being the NWP is an international waterway...

Whether they are valid or not is of no consequence. We are talking about the ability to enforce claims by military means. China seems intent on acquiring that ability. Once they have it, they can use it anywhere they choose, unless there is some sort of deterence.

Claiming the NWP is an international waterway is not a territorial claim by the US. By definition, international waterways are open to all nations.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

Yes you are...thank you for not hating America like "two thirds" of the world. LOL!

Ditto.

...which is why Canada gets away with a tiny military.

Without the USA, Canada would be more of a chew-toy for Red China than it already is.

Thank you for recognizing that, too. And of course, as I'm sure you won't deny, Canada is in the background giving support to the U.S. in its military endeavours - which seems to escape the "Canada is loved by the world because we are soooo peaceful that we wouldn't hurt a fly" crowd.

I find it interesting that many in this same crowd boast of Canada's bright future because of all the country's natural resources - and I can't help but think 'you best be prepared to defend those natural resources or they could bring more harm than good.'

[wyly]

Whether they are valid or not is of no consequence. We are talking about the ability to enforce claims by military means. China seems intent on acquiring that ability. Once they have it, they can use it anywhere they choose, unless there is some sort of deterence.

Claiming the NWP is an international waterway is not a territorial claim by the US. By definition, international waterways are open to all nations.

bizarre and contradictory...

[Wilber]

bizarre and contradictory...

That it?

[Guest American Woman]

Mr. Ashley you [...] also stated:

"Canada only ends up with Enemies the US makes for Canada."

With due respect that's a crock.

Canada has benefitted from both the US Coast Guard and Navy engaging in dangerous operations to save Canadians at sea because we had insufficient rescue services able to do the job.

For years we lived with the benefit of having the U.S. Navy and Air Force patrol off our coasts especially during the cold war.

You can afford to be cocky when you sit next to the U.S. and take its protection for granted.

Canada has ben close friends with countries not friendly to the US. We also managed to piss of China while the US at the same time sucked up to China.

For years our foreign policy often has conflicted with the US in regards to who we support and how much in terms of foreign aid.

If Canada makes enemies it begins and ends with our decision making no one else's.

Well put. And why wouldn't it begin and end with Canada's decisions? How could it not? If it weren't true, it would mean that Canada has no power at all - and is completely, unwillfully controlled by the United States.

Nothing stops us from having a distinct foreign policy. Nothing. If Harper chooses the foreign policy he does,its because a Canadian decides not an American.

Exactly. And the decision is made based on what's best for Canada - as well it should be.

Tell me where do any of us get off trying to suggest we suffer from our relationship with the US when 85% of all our business gets traded to Americans? Who tells Canada to be so dependent on the U.S.?

If we are dependent on the U.S. its because we lack the balls to invest in our own country and divest our economy.

I think it's more because it's been a beneficial relationship. I don't think it's so much a lack of anything as it has been unnecessary. At least that's how I see it. I see it as equally beneficial to us both.

As well this notion we are supposed to be the world's friend is absolutely nauseating for me. This notion we must be the world's nice guy loved by all to me is a phony Canadian affectation started by Lester Pearson.

Thank you for that.

What you think people don't genuinely dislike you or me around the world because they detest our Canadian moral values?

You think our multi culturalism that tolerates new Canadians resisting assimilation and demanding tolerance of their beliefs while rejecting everyone else's fosters friends?

Furthermore, if you or I or the next person isn't liked simply because of one's nationality, rather than because of their own merits, the person doing that type of judging is a bigot.

Give me a break. We have made ourselves a laughing stock precisely because we have tried to be everyone's friend and have rendered ourselves a joke organized drug and people smugglers and illegals who come to benefit from our medical and social welfare systems and leave after they have sucked us for all they can get.

I've often wondered if Canadians feel this way - and figure there has to be more than a few who do......

I love Canada. It's a beautiful country and I feel we are so fortunate to be neighbors. but I have to wonder about some of this "medical and social welfare system" stuff - seems to me you can't keep providing services to people who come, become citizens, and then move back home - until 'the system' is needed. Seems to me that's eventually going to come back to bite y'all in the behind. - Where are the funds to keep coming from?

If you think being anti American will suddenly make everyone in the world love us think again.

I think a good number of the anti-Americans you speak of would be truly shocked to find out how well the U.S. is thought of and how well Americans are received throughout the world.

The U.S. has been our closest ally. To say it causes us enemies is a crock.

No one forced us to Afghanistan. No one forced us to Korea. Where were you when we disagreed with the US over foreign policy anyways?

The prevailing line of thought seems to be that any war Canada was/is involved in was/is a just war, while any war we participated in without upfront backing from Canada is a terrible war.

You being Canadian seem to be making cheap shots at fellow Canadians. What next do you want to blame that cheap shot on the U.S.?

"The devil made him do it!"

Edited August 17, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

Mr. Ashley you asked: "How did project power globally fit into this discussion about Canadian ships?"

I am not sure what you are getting at but at the present time the Canadian Navy is not operational. It has no destroyers capable of patrolling both its large coasts. It has 4 destroyers. One is rusted and non functional. Another is cannabalized for parts. Another two creek about. Do the math.

The Canadian Navy should have a minimum of 4 destroyers per coast in my opinion and a minimum of 2-5 fully functional sub-marines per coast operating at all times.

We currently have three 280s, though getting tired, they are functioning….their sister (Huron) is at the bottom of the Juan de Fuca strait….Then there’s five frigates on the left coast and seven on the east……

We could never afford 8 destroyers and 12 frigates with our current budget, for example, that size of force structure would put us on par with the Royal navy………A split of 3-4 destroyers and 10-12 frigates is about what is manageable for us within our current budget and crewing restraints.

Also don't forget its submarines are crippled and it only has one fuel resupply ship that functions.

This does not even touch the smaller ships it would need nor additional new helicopters we need for search and rescue.

The four subs we do have would be fine if we threw enough money at them ….We do have two ancient AORs, to be replaced with 2, possibly 3 in the next few years…..There’s no need for “smaller ships” or SAR helicopters…..the Orca’s are brand new, the AOPS will replace most of the Kingstons (the oldest being ~20 years) and the CH-149s are only ten years old….

Right now anyone can bring terrorists, illegal immigrants and smugglers at will into Canada's uncontrolled coastal areas not to mention depleting our fisheries.

We have gone from the world's third largest Navy to one of its smallest and we are the second largest geographic country in the world with cast coastal areas in the Pacific, Atlantic and Artic abandon.

Not quite, we do have some idea whom enters our waters, granted a lot of help is given by the United States and there is areas that do need improvement and some of these areas are (slowly) being addressed….we’re hardly blind (sans the artic)……..And our current Navy, by tonnage, might barely be in the top twenty of the world, we’re defiantly one of the more capable in NATO with only the USN, RN, MN, Armada and the Marina Militare surpassing ours in terms of capability.

Nor does it change the fact we have an aging F-18 fleet in need of replacement and had a closed tender to purchase a one engine fighter designed for low ground warfare when what we needed is a two engined higher altitude longer range interceptor to patrol. I would have gone with more craft from the French or Swedish rather than the popular consortium Canada has bought into but I can understand why it did. At least it has recognized it has to retrofit the air force.

There will be nothing that the CF-35 can’t do that the CF-18 currently does, and in most cases drastically better, in some areas, it will give us capabilities that we don’t currently have.

Anything the French (Rafele) and Swedish (Gripen) have to offer, are only slight upgrades over what we currently have.

The Army was stretched to its functional limit and had no hercules aircraft to transport itself.

The army was stretched, but there was no problems with lack of avalibitly of our ancient Herc fleet during the dirt box deployment, the E’s are retiring and being replaced by the Globemasters and the Jercs..

[William Ashley]

but then you still need to answer why would they throw away all their economic success by invading some desolate canadian arctic island for resources we will gladly sell them...

Shhh. Don't give them ideas.

It is the same sort of concept of the berths.

What else you gonna do to substantiate the need for trillions in defence spending. You are paying for it anyway. Its not like they don't move the boats or people that they don't use. They pay whether they are used or not. That is an island. If you had a choice between island and no island what would you choose?

The thing though is Canada "could be" insulated a bit like Switzerland was during the Nazi years. But the fact is that it is a very problematic issue to discuss unless you don't understand something. When was the last time the US wasn't running an operation in relation to an overthrow of a government? Iraq took over a decade, afghanistan is going on a decade. lots of fund in the 70's and 80's --- same deal with vietnam in the 60's, korea and others.. it is a really busy country when it comes to war. A lot of US destabilizations, supports and other acts of war activities don't even count as wars for the US.

Edited August 17, 2011 by William Ashley

[PIK]

Chinese are building the mother of all ice breakers and have no ice, and thier top soldier says thing like ''we have 20% of the population so 20% of the resourse in the arctic should be ours'' Open your eyes william, your great charter of rights( all rights and no responsibilties) will mean nothing to them.

[Thorn]

"We"...when I think of the USA and Canada I think "we". I'm a rare Canadian these days, apparently.

Spend three hours in a line trying to get past the zealots at the American border and come tell me that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Spend three hours in a line trying to get past the zealots at the American border and come tell me that.

Why would an America hater even wait 5 minutes to cross into the United States? Cheap gas and cigarettes?

[Thorn]

The Canadian Navy should have a minimum of 4 destroyers per coast in my opinion and a minimum of 2-5 fully functional sub-marines per coast operating at all times.

Far more sensible, imo, would be coastal patrol aircraft and fast coastal patrol craft. Right now we have the Kingstons, but no bodies to crew them, and they only do 15 knots. The coast guard is to get 9 midshore patrol vessels in four or five years, which is probably about one third what they actually need. The Auroras we fly on coastal surveillance are over thirty years old and no replacement is in sight for them.

[Thorn]

Why would an America hater even wait 5 minutes to cross into the United States? Cheap gas and cigarettes?

I don't hate Americans in general. I just have a certain measure of contempt for some of their failings, and for some of the more boorish among them, like you.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Thorn

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't hate Americans in general. I just have a certain measure of contempt for some of their failings, and for some of the more boorish among them, like you.

Roger that....I don't get that excited about the boorish behaviour of Canadians, except to point out that it also exists.

I don't have any need to cross the border any more, so hate away!

[wyly]

Chinese are building the mother of all ice breakers and have no ice, and thier top soldier says thing like ''we have 20% of the population so 20% of the resourse in the arctic should be ours'' Open your eyes william, your great charter of rights( all rights and no responsibilties) will mean nothing to them.

find a link to the quote and the context in which it was made...continental shelf mineral rights are off the table for china but the sea floor of the ocean is a legitimate claim...they're not coming for our frozen wasteland...

the arctic is international waters China has every right to cross it if it chooses, many countries will do the same as it's the shortest route to europe the chinese having an icebreaker to guide their shipping through winter ice would be expected...I would suggest you open your eyes but I think using your brain may be more beneficial...

Edited August 18, 2011 by wyly

[Sir Bandelot]

Fix?

Cha-ching!

[Wilber]

find a link to the quote and the context in which it was made...continental shelf mineral rights are off the table for china but the sea floor of the ocean is a legitimate claim...they're not coming for our frozen wasteland...

the arctic is international waters China has every right to cross it if it chooses, many countries will do the same as it's the shortest route to europe the chinese having an icebreaker to guide their shipping through winter ice would be expected...I would suggest you open your eyes but I think using your brain may be more beneficial...

So you agree with the US that the NWP should be international waters.

[wyly]

So you agree with the US that the NWP should be international waters.

geography is not a strong point with many here...go look at a map of the arctic on google earth, once climate change leaves a largely open sea to traverse the NWP will be an insignificant channel...a direct shipping route from china to europe will be north of our arctic islands and Greenland, the narrow NWP would be a longer and more dangerous route...

no I do not agree the NWP is an international waterway, the region is too ecologically sensitive for international shipping and when measuring distance from headland to headland portions of the NWP fall completely within our territorial limits ...my point has always been it's absolute bullshit that we need to buy super planes to defend our sovereignty from china and russia when we don't even stand up to the usa....

Edited August 18, 2011 by wyly

[Wild Bill]

geography is not a strong point with many here...go look at a map of the arctic on google earth, once climate change leaves a largely open sea to traverse the NWP will be an insignificant channel...a direct shipping route from china to europe will be north of our arctic islands and Greenland, the narrow NWP would be a longer and more dangerous route...

no I do not agree the NWP is an international waterway, the region is too ecologically sensitive for international shipping and when measuring distance from headland to headland portions of the NWP fall completely within our territorial limits ...my point has always been it's absolute bullshit that we need to buy super planes to defend our sovereignty from china and russia when we don't even stand up to the usa....

You know, if the Arctic ice does NOT disappear, at least to that amount, your whole argument melts!

It's a pity that we'll all likely be dead before Mother Nature proves who's right and who's wrong.