nerve Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 As far as Russias fleet it could whip out most of North America with its sub fleet any minute, which would likely leave everyone in the dark and no more internet, any second. It isn't weak, many thousands could die any second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 I can't say I agree Derek. The Canadian Navy isn't about GC's foreign policies - it is about NATO, UN, and Partisan objectives. NATO, the UN, and "partisan objectives" are apart of the Government of Canada's foreign policies...... Sorry but China and Russia, are way more of a threat today than the USSR has been since the 1970's. Where once we had one Khans empire, now we have Ghengis' Empire. The technology today is way more advance, and Russia and China are developing and deploying systems that make Canada's obsolete military technology - or the USSRs for that matter comparing an Acheulean blade to a musket. Will be is saying it isn't done. You're right, the technology is more advanced, as such, the technology of the 70s and 80s that negated the then Soviet threat has progressed to a point that it further negates a now far reduced Russian or Chinese threats....... As far as Russias fleet it could whip out most of North America with its sub fleet any minute, which would likely leave everyone in the dark and no more internet, any second. It isn't weak, many thousands could die any second. Sure, and as a response, the USN's deterrent alone could end the Russian and Chinese culture as we know it.....what is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerve Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) NATO, the UN, and "partisan objectives" are apart of the Government of Canada's foreign policies......It is funny you say that, I would say, the Government of Canada is part of NATO, the UN, and partisan objectives. It is a bit like saying the hat is what controls the man rather than the man controlling the hat. I just am amused that you think backwater Canadian politicans run Canada's foreign policy, do you really think that?Its a bit like the whining child in the room gets to tell the adults what is for dinner. You're right, the technology is more advanced, as such, the technology of the 70s and 80s that negated the then Soviet threat has progressed to a point that it further negates a now far reduced Russian or Chinese threats.......I can only guess you are aware of technology I am not aware of, and perhaps for both our safety it should stay that way People need to sleep at night right. There is no negation as far as I am aware of the threat, it is the threat that negates, in Russia. Sure, and as a response, the USN's deterrent alone could end the Russian and Chinese culture as we know it.....what is your point?Would we? Do we?The point is that Canada needs a fiscal defence policy that will make Canada money or atleast improve the quality of life of Canadians to improve living conditions for Canadians. But that it would make more sense just to give 5% of GDP to NATO to buy for Canada. In the same vein as combining Navy and Coast Guard needs, Canada should role the Navy and Coast Guard into a Merchant service, that will create a fiscal dimension to defence planning. Edited July 22, 2015 by nerve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 It is funny you say that, I would say, the Government of Canada is part of NATO, the UN, and partisan objectives. It is a bit like saying the hat is what controls the man rather than the man controlling the hat. I just am amused that you think backwater Canadian politicans run Canada's foreign policy, do you really think that? Its a bit like the whining child in the room gets to tell the adults what is for dinner. And who do you think "runs" Canada's foreign policy? I can only guess you are aware of technology I am not aware of, and perhaps for both our safety it should stay that way People need to sleep at night right. There is no negation as far as I am aware of the threat, it is the threat that negates, in Russia. A safe assumption: "It produced a sound as from a myriad of roaring dragons and was borne by Athena in battle....among them went bright eyed Athena, holding the precious AEGIS which is ageless and immortal: a hundred tassels of pure gold hang fluttering from it, tight woven each of them, and each the worth of a hundred oxen" - Homer's Iliad- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerve Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 And who do you think "runs" Canada's foreign policy? Nominally the dept. of foreign affairs - however here are some of the actual stake holders I think Canada's foreign affairs. Diplomats - including those at the UN and foreign Embassies. The military - such as NATO, and particularly US requests for operations support. In that vein the military industrial complex that provides equipment and thus capabilities. Responses from foreign governments which set the "limits" on acheivable potential. Travelors, and business people who conduct foreign activities. Partisan constiuents, particularly ethinic constituents who influence government policy. In essence DFAIT attempts to prioritize stakeholders demands - of course other grous such as CIDA, CSIS, the RCMP, CF. You state Canada's foreign policy as opposed to GC's foreign policy - so to answer that more directly. Canada's foreign policy is directed by other states interaction with Canada, which creates drive for reaching objectives or denying actions, the responses are measured based upon available resources and ingenuity. Also policy is a little dim as is it suppose to mean actual implemented policy or desired face? Policy is implemented by foreign positioned actors and public mood. The government of Canada's policy is almost totally partisan. A safe assumption: "It produced a sound as from a myriad of roaring dragons and was borne by Athena in battle....among them went bright eyed Athena, holding the precious AEGIS which is ageless and immortal: a hundred tassels of pure gold hang fluttering from it, tight woven each of them, and each the worth of a hundred oxen" Aegis is so old, it has actually been replaced with a newer system. Aegis is ineffective against the newest Chinese and Russian technology.I also need to correct myself the amphibious landers Russia bought arn't the sole replacement for the lost mistrals, apparently they have also started bidding for two different ship classes that one atleast is even bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 Why? Our Navy very much so provides a constabulary role (since its inception) to our maritime security, far more then the unionized Canadian Coast Guard........The DeWolf class will be a vast improvement over the Kingston class for domestic requirements, The problem with this new class is the same as their last attempt. The Kingston was a hybrid, sort of a patrol ship, cum training ship, cum minesweeper. And it was not very good at any of them. Now we've got this icebreaker cum patrol ship and it won't be able to do either as well as a real icebreaker or patrol ship. well also not being a costly waste of resources, I'd call over $3 billion for four ships pretty damn costly. In addition, purpose built Arctic vessels will give our a navy a capability that isn't shared by any other, Which is what? They can't project power into the arctic. They'd be moving at a snails pace and dead meat for any kind of sub or air to surface missile. Comparable? The new RN Rivers will be 1/3rd the size of the DeWolf class, You didn't read the cite. The new Rivers will be almost 300 feet long have a reduced range and endurance, and won't be able to support and sustain a helicopter, OPV boasts of an enhanced flight deck at the aft to operate the latest Merlin helicopters. And the ships have a range of 5,500 nautical milles nor have the C&C facilities that will allow the vessels to support multi sized sea, air and on land operations....Which it would use when? Remember, its slow speed means it's not going to be part of any sort of large fleet operations unless they're right off the coast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 The problem with this new class is the same as their last attempt. The Kingston was a hybrid, sort of a patrol ship, cum training ship, cum minesweeper. And it was not very good at any of them. Now we've got this icebreaker cum patrol ship and it won't be able to do either as well as a real icebreaker or patrol ship. The Kingston class performs all of its roles, sans OPV, well......there is nothing wrong with the class, which has outstanding maneuverability and performs its assigned tasks as well as any other similar class in any other modern navy....... And what are you basing your opinion on the DeWolf class being poor at performing its assigned future tasks? Name me another Polar 5 ice-capable patrol vessel to compare.........likewise, why the DeWolf class will make a poor "patrol ship"? Its big, will have good sea-keeping, won't bob like a cork in the Atlantic or Pacific (due to retractable stabilizers) and will be able to operate a (large) helicopter in the same sea states as our current frigates.......and of course, it has a Polar 5 hull rating........not too many navies and coast guards around the world have a similar capability.... I'd call over $3 billion for four ships pretty damn costly. 5 + 1 ships.......your advanced LCS, which doesn't meet our domestic needs, will cost over a billion per vessel..... Which is what? They can't project power into the arctic. They'd be moving at a snails pace and dead meat for any kind of sub or air to surface missile. They are not intended to project power in the Arctic, but provide presence and support to the Department of National Defense operations within the Canadians Arctic......everything from support to NORAD/surveillance, Arctic SAR, supporting the Rangers, and arctic warfare training for the regular force.... You didn't read the cite. The new Rivers will be almost 300 feet long I did read the cite........I'm referring to tonnage, of which, outside our previous AORs, cruisers, and aircraft carriers, the Harry DeWolf class will be the largest ships commissioned in the RCN. OPV boasts of an enhanced flight deck at the aft to operate the latest Merlin helicopters. And the ships have a range of 5,500 nautical milles I know, the "enhanced flight deck" will be able to land the FAA's Merlins and Wildcats (maybe refuel?), but, as I said, not support them....... The DeWolf class will have a range closer to 7000 nautical miles.....and can support its helicopter and smaller vessels (including landing craft), in addition to carrying ISO containers, snowmobiles, quads, light tracked vehicles, small UAVs (like the Kingston class), an ROV, route survey equipment, a hyperbaric chamber etc..........the River class OPV.....not so much. Which it would use when? Remember, its slow speed means it's not going to be part of any sort of large fleet operations unless they're right off the coast. When ever it deploys to the Arctic on annual operations or when its used as a response to a natural disaster, be it domestic or overseas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 The Post is probably the most pro-Tory major newspaper around, but even they have lost patience with the government's continuing feebleness in supplying the Canadian military. In 2008, two years after the Conservatives took power, they promised 15 new ships to replace ageing destroyers and frigates; 10 to 12 maritime patrol aircraft; 17 fixed-wing search and rescue planes; 65 new fighter jets, and a fleet of new land-combat vehicles. Seven years later, it’s all either been cancelled, shelved or is on distant future order. Meanwhile, particularly at sea, vital military capabilities have been lost to rust out. We knew this was coming. Ships only last so long. But we did nothing, and are now scrambling to react to the perfectly predictable. This is hardly the prudent, sound management the Tories like to boast of. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-are-the-tories-sound-managers-not-of-the-navy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 The Kingston class performs all of its roles, sans OPV, well......there is nothing wrong with the class, which has outstanding maneuverability and performs its assigned tasks as well as any other similar class in any other modern navy....... At 15 knots (cruising speed of 9 knots) I question just how 'maneuverable' it is, unless you're talking about sticking oars over the sides to help it move. It's 'main armament' if you can call it that, is a second world war era gun which is manually aimed. That's why it's largely been relegated to the role of training ship. And what are you basing your opinion on the DeWolf class being poor at performing its assigned future tasks? I'm sure it will be fine at its assigned future tasks of sitting next to the wharf and making slow visits to native settlements to show the flag. I just don't think that's worth over $3 billion for 4 ships. Name me another Polar 5 ice-capable patrol vessel to compare Other navies don't operate icebreakers. There's no logical reason to. .........likewise, why the DeWolf class will make a poor "patrol ship"? It's too damned slow. 5 + 1 ships....... According to the PBO there isn't enough money for more than 4, given the way costs have risen. And given the near total neglect of the military in the Conservative's decade of darkness, I have no confidence that any more money will be allocated. Witness the supply ship quest, which, when it became evident they couldn't build the ships for the money they had allocated, got cancelled, rather than have more money added. They are not intended to project power in the Arctic, but provide presence and support to the Department of National Defense operations within the Canadians Arctic..... Our presence in the Canadian Arctic largely consists of some natives with carbines. The government was supposed to build a new military base there but then found out that would cost money. Arctic SAR? Adding a few helicopters for SAR up there would e a hell of a lot more cost effective. The speed of these boats when there's ice to break is 3 knots. You don't do SAR with 3 knots. I did read the cite........I'm referring to tonnage, of which, outside our previous AORs, cruisers, and aircraft carriers, the Harry DeWolf class will be the largest ships commissioned in the RCN. Well, if tonnage is that important lets's just buy an old freighter and put a chopper on it. It would be a lot cheaper, and would go a lot faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 The Post is probably the most pro-Tory major newspaper around, but even they have lost patience with the government's continuing feebleness in supplying the Canadian military. In 2008, two years after the Conservatives took power, they promised 15 new ships to replace ageing destroyers and frigates; 10 to 12 maritime patrol aircraft; 17 fixed-wing search and rescue planes; 65 new fighter jets, and a fleet of new land-combat vehicles. Seven years later, it’s all either been cancelled, shelved or is on distant future order. Meanwhile, particularly at sea, vital military capabilities have been lost to rust out. We knew this was coming. Ships only last so long. But we did nothing, and are now scrambling to react to the perfectly predictable. This is hardly the prudent, sound management the Tories like to boast of. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-are-the-tories-sound-managers-not-of-the-navy Nevermind operational capabilities: the question that matters is how do they look as backdrops in photo-ops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) That's why it's largely been relegated to the role of training ship. Actually, the Canadian forces employs them more and more where frigates aren't needed. Operation Caribbe has been mostly supplied by these ships. The same is true of northern deployments, as they are more capable than frigates in ice. Edited July 24, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 actually, the Canadian forces employs there more and more where frigates aren't needed. Operation Caribbe has been mostly supplied by these ships. The same is true of northern deployments, as they are more capable than frigates in ice. What we need above all else along our coasts are patrols for smuggling, drugs, and terrorism, and I'm not talking about up north. What we need are small, fast ships with good eyes. Helicopters are nice but the cost makes constant patrols using them prohibitively expensive. We also need new patrol planes. Everything else is secondary. The Kingston class was always too slow for the job, and the new dewolf class isn't much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Nevermind operational capabilities: the question that matters is how do they look as backdrops in photo-ops? I would not say you're wrong, since it certainly appears to be that way. Unfortunately, I have absolutely ZERO confidence the NDP or Liberals would put even as much importance on refurbishing the navy as the Conservatives do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 What we need are small, fast ships with good eyes. Good luck with that in the north Atlantic. What we need are lightly armed corvettes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Good luck with that in the north Atlantic. What we need are lightly armed corvettes. What we should have are frigates further out, then patrol aircraft and smaller, faster vessels offshore. Unfortunately our patrol aircraft are antiques. Edited July 23, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 What we should have are frigates further out, then patrol aircraft and smaller, faster vessels offshore. Unfortunately our patrol aircraft are antiques. Actually, after the upgrade they're apparently performing quite well. The probably should have upgraded all of them though (4 will be left out and used less, eventually being phased out - they are however being partially replaced by a fleet of 4 smaller planes for use in theatre). http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=expanding-the-cp-140-modernized-aurora-fleet/hszrx7qw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 At 15 knots (cruising speed of 9 knots) I question just how 'maneuverable' it is, unless you're talking about sticking oars over the sides to help it move. It's 'main armament' if you can call it that, is a second world war era gun which is manually aimed. That's why it's largely been relegated to the role of training ship. Speed plays little into the equation....their azimuth thrusters allow the Kingstons to "hover" in rough weather (what conventional ships can't do), which is important when supporting MCM/route survey/dive support etc I'm sure it will be fine at its assigned future tasks of sitting next to the wharf and making slow visits to native settlements to show the flag. I just don't think that's worth over $3 billion for 4 ships. Riiight..........the contract for 5+1 is already signed, with production already started on the first......... Other navies don't operate icebreakers. There's no logical reason to. By other navies, I trust you meant other navies, other than the Danes, Norwegians and Russians don't operate ice-capable patrol vessels......odd that Northern countries would do that........ It's too damned slow. Compared to what? According to the PBO there isn't enough money for more than 4, given the way costs have risen. And given the near total neglect of the military in the Conservative's decade of darkness, I have no confidence that any more money will be allocated. Witness the supply ship quest, which, when it became evident they couldn't build the ships for the money they had allocated, got cancelled, rather than have more money added. Yet, the GoC has already signed a $2.3 billion contract with Irving for six of them......... Our presence in the Canadian Arctic largely consists of some natives with carbines. The government was supposed to build a new military base there but then found out that would cost money. Arctic SAR? Adding a few helicopters for SAR up there would e a hell of a lot more cost effective. The speed of these boats when there's ice to break is 3 knots. You don't do SAR with 3 knots. Our presence is far more involved then the Rangers........Oddly enough, during the construction of the previous DEW line, our then RCN icebreaker played a key role......... As to Arctic SAR, where do you propose to base these "few extra helicopters"? You understand, the Canadian Arctic region is larger then Western Europe right? Clearly you don't see the advantage of several, mobile, full service helicopter vessels, present during the shipping season, that will be capable of supporting every helicopter (sans the Chinook) in service of the GoC......in addition, a mobile platform, with more extensive air traffic control, and rescue coordination facilities then nearly all Northern Communities combined..........thankfully, based on the annual Nanook exercises (since 2007), the DND and CCG understand the utility of such an investment.... Well, if tonnage is that important lets's just buy an old freighter and put a chopper on it. It would be a lot cheaper, and would go a lot faster. Are you expecting a serious response? Name an "old freighter", that is cheaper and faster, and will have the same capabilities as the DeWolf class........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 actually, the Canadian forces employs there more and more where frigates aren't needed. Operation Caribbe has been mostly supplied by these ships. The same is true of northern deployments, as they are more capable than frigates in ice. Exactly, likewise RIMPAC......the Kingstons do certain niche roles very well, and the Harry DeWolf class will only expand on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 What we need above all else along our coasts are patrols for smuggling, drugs, and terrorism, and I'm not talking about up north. What we need are small, fast ships with good eyes. Helicopters are nice but the cost makes constant patrols using them prohibitively expensive. We also need new patrol planes. Everything else is secondary. The Kingston class was always too slow for the job, and the new dewolf class isn't much better. Small, fast ships, don't operate in rough weather, which is found year-round on all three of our coasts.......a ships helicopter is far more then a "nice to have", on the majority of modern naval vessels, the helicopter(s) are one of the cornerstones of the ships sensor/weapons suite.........you want "good eyes", the ship with a helicopter beats the ship without hands down...........As to your cost comparisons, you're talking out of your ass......a single, gas turbine powered (you want fast) naval vessel burns more fuel in several hours then a helicopter operating for over a week.....furthermore, a helicopter can patrol an area in hours, what would take ship days....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Good luck with that in the north Atlantic. What we need are lightly armed corvettes. Not for domestic use........The RCN ran away from corvettes (and pressed minesweepers) for Atlantic use once Canadian yards could turn out the River class frigates....the corvettes were far too small, and in rough weather, the crews spent more time keeping them afloat then looking for U-Boats...... Something like the (larger) LCS would be useful (and cheaper) for Canada, forward deployed, in the Persian Gulf or to combat Somali pirates etc, but would be useless as tits on a bull on operations in the North Atlantic/Pacific..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 What we should have are frigates further out, then patrol aircraft and smaller, faster vessels offshore. Unfortunately our patrol aircraft are antiques. Close, but not quite..... your information is again flawed. First, our frigates cost far too much and are overkill to use "further out" to combat smugglers and illegal fishing boats, the DeWolf class will cost a fraction to operate as a CPF offshore off our three coasts.....Second, we have both satellites and maritime coastal radar, and information sharing (via post 9/11 NORAD) and coordination with the Americans....we know what ships are approaching North America 24/7365.......third, the CP-140s aren't antiques, with the recent AIMP, they are one of the most capable (and combat proven) aircraft in the World, combining the roles that the USN and USAF does with several aircraft (P-3, P-8, EP-8 and E-8 joint stars).........and with all that, we have the ability to place "smaller, faster vessels, inshore" due to a gift from the Greeks......trigonometry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Actually, after the upgrade they're apparently performing quite well. The probably should have upgraded all of them though (4 will be left out and used less, eventually being phased out - they are however being partially replaced by a fleet of 4 smaller planes for use in theatre). http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=expanding-the-cp-140-modernized-aurora-fleet/hszrx7qw The four not upgraded will replace the Arcturus aircraft in the training role, themselves being replaced by four, smaller ISR aircraft for operations overseas.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Actually, after the upgrade they're apparently performing quite well. The probably should have upgraded all of them though (4 will be left out and used less, eventually being phased out - they are however being partially replaced by a fleet of 4 smaller planes for use in theatre). http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=expanding-the-cp-140-modernized-aurora-fleet/hszrx7qw That's nice but it's a stopgap measure. These planes are deep into their thirties and the government was supposed to replace them. Lockheed shut down the production line 25 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 That's nice but it's a stopgap measure. These planes are deep into their thirties and the government was supposed to replace them. Lockheed shut down the production line 25 years ago. The age of them, now that they've been retrofitted, is moot, unlike fighters, larger military aircraft are far more durable.......the USAF has been flying B-52s and KC-135s for decades, and will continue to fly them for decades still......what is important is the electronics on the inside, which the CP-140 is now state of the art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Canadian Government finally grabs a brain: http://ow.ly/i/cj1C4/original Maybe they can find us a destroyer while they're at it? Edited August 10, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.