Jump to content

Royal Canadian Navy doesn't need new ships


Thorn

Recommended Posts

We need a carrier on each coast and an icebreaking carrier in the north. Designing and building an icebreaker-carrier would be a unique engineering challenge that could be used to stimulate Canadian industry and innovation. Also, each carrier should have a full complement of support vessels including destroyers, frigates, and submarines. And, we should have a few dozen additional ships patrolling the coastline at all times. We could do the three carriers for probably $30 bn, and that much again for all the other ships we'd need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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....

The closest route to a great circle from the Bering Straight to Western Europe would indeed take you just north of Greenland but that is also over 500 NM north of the NWP. The difference in ice conditions could be substantial, even prohibitive on the northern route. Why try and bash through pack ice north of Greenland if climate change provides an ice free NWP for extended periods of the year? The NWP would also provide the shortest marine route from Asia to the east coast of North America, about 2800 NM less than via Panama. The NWP will provide sovereignty issues with more than just the Americans if it becomes largely ice free.

The USA has continued exactly the same policy as Britain's in the 19th century when the Royal Navy was supreme on the worlds oceans. That the worlds sea routes are to be kept open for all nations. Until satellite mapping became possible, Admiralty Charts were the standard used by all the worlds navies and merchant marines, made freely available to all countries. The US has continued that policy by making GPS available to anyone who can afford less than a couple of hundred bucks to buy one of the receivers, even the Russians and Chinese. The Chinese have probably made more money off GPS than the Americans by building and selling the receivers to people like you and I.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a carrier on each coast and an icebreaking carrier in the north. Designing and building an icebreaker-carrier would be a unique engineering challenge that could be used to stimulate Canadian industry and innovation. Also, each carrier should have a full complement of support vessels including destroyers, frigates, and submarines. And, we should have a few dozen additional ships patrolling the coastline at all times. We could do the three carriers for probably $30 bn, and that much again for all the other ships we'd need.

What do we need all that for??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do we need all that for??

To enforce Canadian sovereignty along its shores, project overwhelming power to any area of our coasts that needs it, and be able to instantly set up a base of operations anywhere along our remote and unpopulated coastlines. We could also use these capabilities when participating in allied missions abroad. Plus, nothing stimulates industry and creates good jobs like tens of billions in military construction, design, and R&D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

We need a carrier on each coast and an icebreaking carrier in the north. Designing and building an icebreaker-carrier would be a unique engineering challenge that could be used to stimulate Canadian industry and innovation. Also, each carrier should have a full complement of support vessels including destroyers, frigates, and submarines. And, we should have a few dozen additional ships patrolling the coastline at all times. We could do the three carriers for probably $30 bn, and that much again for all the other ships we'd need.

Ice-breaking carrier? Well, the average speed of ice breakers, well breaking ice is under 5 knots….a carrier conducting flight opps over 25.…….How about just using and extending the current strips the Hornets already use….and maybe adding an additional squadron of joint strike fighters…….or half dozen business jets modified with a surface search radar and some surveillance gear?

We could do my plan for about 2 billion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ice-breaking carrier? Well, the average speed of ice breakers, well breaking ice is under 5 knots….a carrier conducting flight opps over 25.…….How about just using and extending the current strips the Hornets already use….and maybe adding an additional squadron of joint strike fighters…….or half dozen business jets modified with a surface search radar and some surveillance gear?

We could do my plan for about 2 billion...

Why go small when you can go big? Anyway, the icebreaker carrier would be designed to go at normal speeds when not in ice. But having a carrier group that could operate in iced-over waters would give Canada a unique capability. Heck, why not make a submarine carrier that lurks beneath the waves, then emerges to launch a squadron of fighters on an unsuspecting foe~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To enforce Canadian sovereignty along its shores, project overwhelming power to any area of our coasts that needs it, and be able to instantly set up a base of operations anywhere along our remote and unpopulated coastlines. We could also use these capabilities when participating in allied missions abroad. Plus, nothing stimulates industry and creates good jobs like tens of billions in military construction, design, and R&D.

I'm not convinced it will help to boost the economy. Modern military technology is so much more expensive. Isn't it ironic that the great powers, US and Britain are moving in the opposite direction, considering selling off navy equipment and recalling troops, contracting their military reach due to economic reasons while we start building up our military?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Why go small when you can go big? Anyway, the icebreaker carrier would be designed to go at normal speeds when not in ice. But having a carrier group that could operate in iced-over waters would give Canada a unique capability. Heck, why not make a submarine carrier that lurks beneath the waves, then emerges to launch a squadron of fighters on an unsuspecting foe~

Normal speeds? You understand the difference between the two hull types? One is designed, to well, break ice and doesn’t go “normal speeds” when it’s not…….go look up some of the max speeds of current ice breakers…..

A half dozen paved strips, with fuelling facilities and hangers, a half dozen Bombardier Global 8000s modified with rudimentary surveillance gear, perhaps a couple of CH-146s at each strip, 3-5 additional Jercs for tactical lift and a couple of infantry companies trained in artic warfare in addition to the already planned AOPS and new CCG icebreaker (Perhaps a second one) would be more than sufficient

Why not build an Imperial Star Destroyer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced it will help to boost the economy. Modern military technology is so much more expensive. Isn't it ironic that the great powers, US and Britain are moving in the opposite direction, considering selling off navy equipment and recalling troops, contracting their military reach due to economic reasons while we start building up our military?

Not ironic at all but perfectly logical. Economic reasons have dictated they can no longer baby sit the rest of the world, it will have to start looking after itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced it will help to boost the economy. Modern military technology is so much more expensive. Isn't it ironic that the great powers, US and Britain are moving in the opposite direction, considering selling off navy equipment and recalling troops, contracting their military reach due to economic reasons while we start building up our military?

Think about where the money goes when you decide to build new expensive military technology. It goes to your big defense companies. Who do those companies hire? Talented engineers, machinists, technicians, accountants, lawyers, technical writers, secretaries, managers, etc. That's where most of the cost of this military technology is accounted for. It's certainly not the raw materials that cost all those billions, its all in the labor. 30 billion worth of military equipment spending over 10 years is about 30,000 well paying professional jobs.

If any kind of government spending can be said to stimulate the economy, military spending would be first and foremost.

Normal speeds? You understand the difference between the two hull types? One is designed, to well, break ice and doesn’t go “normal speeds” when it’s not…….go look up some of the max speeds of current ice breakers…..

We are free to design a new class of vessel to whatever specifications we see fit. Increased speed will come at a trade-off, such as costing more, or having a smaller capacity. A quick google search shows plenty of examples of icebreakers with speeds of ~22 knots when not breaking ice. Adding a few more knots to that is a solvable engineering problem. Not that difficult in fact. Especially on a nuclear powered vessel.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The closest route to a great circle from the Bering Straight to Western Europe would indeed take you just north of Greenland but that is also over 500 NM north of the NWP. The difference in ice conditions could be substantial, even prohibitive on the northern route. Why try and bash through pack ice north of Greenland if climate change provides an ice free NWP for extended periods of the year? The NWP would also provide the shortest marine route from Asia to the east coast of North America, about 2800 NM less than via Panama. The NWP will provide sovereignty issues with more than just the Americans if it becomes largely ice free.

the corridor north of greenland will be clear of pack ice before the NWP...the rotation of arctic currents push ice pack toward canada so multiyear ice builds along our arctic islands the ice north of russia is one year ice which icebreakers have an easier time with...

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-04/nasa-study-shows-thinning-arctic-sea-ice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

it's not a question of if it will happen but how soon...projections for ice free summers in the arctic range from 10-30yrs...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the corridor north of greenland will be clear of pack ice before the NWP...the rotation of arctic currents push ice pack toward canada so multiyear ice builds along our arctic islands the ice north of russia is one year ice which icebreakers have an easier time with...

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-04/nasa-study-shows-thinning-arctic-sea-ice

Your link shows old ice packed up against Greenland as well with the NWP clear water. Regardless, if the Arctic Ocean does become ice free during the summer, there will be no ice to push south.

Let me understand your logic. The Arctic Ocean will become ice free during the summer allowing large amounts of shipping therefore we will need less military presence on our north coast. Right.

Sovereignty is becomming more of an issue in the north because of increased accessibility, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a carrier on each coast and an icebreaking carrier in the north. Designing and building an icebreaker-carrier would be a unique engineering challenge that could be used to stimulate Canadian industry and innovation. Also, each carrier should have a full complement of support vessels including destroyers, frigates, and submarines. And, we should have a few dozen additional ships patrolling the coastline at all times. We could do the three carriers for probably $30 bn, and that much again for all the other ships we'd need.

Aircraft carriers are used to project power abroad, well away from your shores. They're not used for protecting your shores. Land based aircraft are far better at that, and we don't even have enough money to buy enough planes to equip three carriers anyway.

Edited by Thorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your link shows old ice packed up against Greenland as well with the NWP clear water. Regardless, if the Arctic Ocean does become ice free during the summer, there will be no ice to push south.

russian coast has more reliable open water due to winds and ocean currents, I don't believe the NWP is open this year...pack ice doesn't melt in a day there will still be ice flows about and an ice free summer in the arctic will amount to about a month the rest of the time icebreakers will be needed to keep the routes open in spring and fall...
Let me understand your logic. The Arctic Ocean will become ice free during the summer allowing large amounts of shipping therefore we will need less military presence on our north coast. Right.
and how much military presences do we actually have on the east and west coast? very little actually and there is no international threat despite a huge amount of shipping in those areas...ships passing by in international waters do not constitute a threat to our sovereignty...no one is going to steal our arctic islands....
Sovereignty is becomming more of an issue in the north because of increased accessibility, not less.
the only threat to our sovereignty is the NWP issue, all mineral rights claims to the continental shelf is being mediated by the UN...implied threats attributed to nasty Russians and devious Chinese are paranoid delusions used to justify extravagant military expenditures.... if people believe theses threats are real they should be up in arms in regards to the only nation that has openly challenged our NWP sovereignty by sailing ships without permission through the passage, the USA...neither China nor Russia have done what the americans have done...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aircraft carriers are used to project power abroad, well away from your shores. They're not used for protecting your shores. Land based aircraft are far better at that, and we don't even have enough money to buy enough planes to equip three carriers anyway.

in WW2 winston churchill reffered to NFLD as the largest aircraft carrier in the world....

two or three small air forces bases with one or two small naval base should be sufficient to assert our pressence in the arctic, carriers are silly as are super planes that linger over over the area for a few seconds...

probably a permanently stationed coast guard ship would be more practical instead of a navy presence

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

russian coast has more reliable open water due to winds and ocean currents, I don't believe the NWP is open this year...pack ice doesn't melt in a day there will still be ice flows about and an ice free summer in the arctic will amount to about a month the rest of the time icebreakers will be needed to keep the routes open in spring and fall...

Maybe but the most direct route from the Orient to Europe would be right over the pole. The most direct route from the Orient to the east coast of NA is still the NWP.

and how much military presences do we actually have on the east and west coast? very little actually and there is no international threat despite a huge amount of shipping in those areas...ships passing by in international waters do not constitute a threat to our sovereignty...no one is going to steal our arctic islands....

Thanks to the US we haven't needed it. Who is going to stop someone from stealing our arctic islands if not us?

the only threat to our sovereignty is the NWP issue, all mineral rights claims to the continental shelf is being mediated by the UN...implied threats attributed to nasty Russians and devious Chinese are paranoid delusions used to justify extravagant military expenditures.... if people believe theses threats are real they should be up in arms in regards to the only nation that has openly challenged our NWP sovereignty by sailing ships without permission through the passage, the USA...neither China nor Russia have done what the americans have done...

As you say, there is a lot to protect. Mediated by the UN but enforced by who? Do you seriously believe there were no Soviet subs operating in Canadian arctic waters during the Cold War? So far, the Chinese and Russians have had no reason to operate surface ships in our arctic waters, the Americans have. Global warming will change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aircraft carriers are used to project power abroad, well away from your shores. They're not used for protecting your shores. Land based aircraft are far better at that, and we don't even have enough money to buy enough planes to equip three carriers anyway.

We don't have the numbers of personnel in our navy to even outfit 1 aircraft carrier from what I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe but the most direct route from the Orient to Europe would be right over the pole. The most direct route from the Orient to the east coast of NA is still the NWP.

most shipping to N america from asia will go to the west coast...any going to the east can still go north of greenland and shorten the panama considerably...
Thanks to the US we haven't needed it. Who is going to stop someone from stealing our arctic islands if not us?
:rolleyes: china can roll over most of their neighbours at will and have they? no... will or has the USA protected vietnam or mongolia from china? no...will or has the USA protected any of the former soviet republics from russian agression? no... but yet according to your logic all thes small states should have been overrun decades ago by these imperialistic resource stealers...evidence would suggest russian and chinese agression is a fantasy...
As you say, there is a lot to protect. Mediated by the UN but enforced by who? Do you seriously believe there were no Soviet subs operating in Canadian arctic waters during the Cold War? So far, the Chinese and Russians have had no reason to operate surface ships in our arctic waters, the Americans have. Global warming will change that.

if the russians, americans, danes, norwegian and canadians didn't intend to live up to UN mediated settlement they wouldn't have agreed to the mediation in the first place...

the americans have no more reason to operate surface ships in our NWP than any other country, none of them have that right without our permission...

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

most shipping to N america from asia will go to the west coast...any going to the east can still go north of greenland and shorten the panama considerably...

Much shorter to take the NWP and Davis Strait.

:

rolleyes: china can roll over most of their neighbours at will and have they? no... will or has the USA protected vietnam or mongolia from china? no...will or has the USA protected any of the former soviet republics from russian agression? no... but yet according to your logic all thes small states should have been overrun decades ago by these imperialistic resource stealers...evidence would suggest russian and chinese agression is a fantasy...

The US doesn't share a border with any of those countries.

if the russians, americans, danes, norwegian and canadians didn't intend to live up to UN mediated settlement they wouldn't have agreed to the mediation in the first place...

Regimes change. So do priorities.

the americans have no more reason to operate surface ships in our NWP than any other country, none of them have that right without our permission...

Of course they do. Look at a map. See Alaska.

If we don't need a military to secure our own borders, what do we need one for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they do....according to "international law" (UNCLOS/LOSC), transits are permitted through straits. No permission required.

Suddenly the US starts caring about international law?

BTW, this only applies to international waters, not domestic waters within the zone of control. You MUST ask for permission to enter territorial waters.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0834_13-e.htm

WHY NOT START CALLING AMERICANS LIARS AND SAVE THE DISCOVERY FOR NEWBIES?

States are fully sovereign in internal waters: they can regulate activities and enforce their laws therein, and foreign states and ships enjoy no maritime rights under international law.

IT IS HUGE! Calling it a strait is absurd, it is a territorial sea, with zones of control due to EEZ.

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

Everything under those top islands zones of control is CANADA water inbetween is not international.

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

The ice and water around those islands is canada

Part of this is due to it being an iceshelf.

1. Iceshelf connecting to the surface of Canada

2. Territorial Waters

3. Internal Sea

4. Part of Continental Shelf

5. Traditional users of the ice/water and land are Canadian Citizens, and it is their first title vested to the sovereign crown of Canada.

Its like me Kayaking down the mississipi and saying I'm in international waters.

Why are you being so utterly rude about it. Canada and the US are suppose to be defence partners, and you are just plain being rude, to hide your nuclear subs and secret exploration that is unlicensed. It is not as if Canada doesn't know what you are up to. The only reason not to ask is that you are up to something that is destructive and against Canadian national interests.

For instance see page 50 of the CANADIAN YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

There is a 200 Nautical Mile limit. also ice covering is used as land. Ice is land - it just happens to erode and rebuild at a faster rate than other soils and rocks. What constitutes an acceptable landform at law? Sea is clearly sea, but ice is definately land because people live on it, have their homes on it etc..

Standing.. NOT swimming

https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/ISIUOP/Inuit+Sea+Ice+Use+and+Occupancy+Project+%28ISIUOP%29

land.

There is lots of organic soils in ice... (although the arguement that it is US carbon might be heard, but you know lots of products come from the US that end up as soil in Canada, but that soil becomes Canadian, much like silts from the great lakes that find their way down the mississipi become US soil - unless you want to argue the mississipi is an international waterway .

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2009JC006058.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JG001716.shtml

what is soil?

Are coral reefs suddenly not land?

http://ask.metafilter.com/83978/Can-the-British-just-sail-right-up-the-Mississippi

Hmm I geuss Canadians can use the Mississipi eh?

http://llstuler.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/the-united-states-doesnt-own-the-mississippi-river/

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/paris/text.html

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Think about where the money goes when you decide to build new expensive military technology. It goes to your big defense companies. Who do those companies hire? Talented engineers, machinists, technicians, accountants, lawyers, technical writers, secretaries, managers, etc. That's where most of the cost of this military technology is accounted for. It's certainly not the raw materials that cost all those billions, its all in the labor. 30 billion worth of military equipment spending over 10 years is about 30,000 well paying professional jobs.

If any kind of government spending can be said to stimulate the economy, military spending would be first and foremost.

We are free to design a new class of vessel to whatever specifications we see fit. Increased speed will come at a trade-off, such as costing more, or having a smaller capacity. A quick google search shows plenty of examples of icebreakers with speeds of ~22 knots when not breaking ice. Adding a few more knots to that is a solvable engineering problem. Not that difficult in fact. Especially on a nuclear powered vessel.

Sure we could design something totally unorthodox, and throw billions, if not trillions at it, and it might work, but why, when would there is a more effective option for less than a fraction of the cost?

Again, why not build a fleet of Imperial Star Destroyers? By your logic, we’d be infusing tons of money into the Canadian economy……

Again, building/extending 3-5 airstrips up north of the artic circle, purchasing a flight of additional C-130J Hercs to base in Yellowknife, an off the shelf purchase of slightly modified Biz jets from Bombardier for surveillance, dividing 12 CH-146 Griffons (That we already have) amongst said airstrips, and having a few hundred reg force infantry trained in artic warfare in addition to the 6 AOPS and the new CCG icebreaker is going to give us many multitudes more capability than a ``ice breaking aircraft carrier``…….for a fraction of the cost……

And if a true war fighting capability was needed in our North, a fleet of 6-8 nuclear attack subs, in addition to my above proposal, would still be cheaper than operating three carrier battle groups, and still more effective.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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 - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...