Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

You and I would go nuts buying ships if able...lol.

We're not the issue.

Not at all, but the Russian Mistrals were/are a solution looking for a problem in Canadian service.

Posted (edited)

Not if we're to become a coast guard.........like I was saying.

For what we do, the reality is, we may not need AAD. Self defence systems for each of the major combatants, as we have right now, is probably enough.

Note that if it were up to me, we'd be getting a larger number of more capable ships, no matter the cost - I'm dealing in reality. No matter who is in power when these are built, it looks like we're going to have to sacrifice something. What Canada does, for the most part, requires combatants, but not AAD.

Edited by Smallc
Posted

Probably. But so are countless 'Syrian' refugees which promise to suck billions if not more....more zeros, that is.

For the money spent to allow them to enter Canadian service, we could have built several AFSBs like USNS Chesty Puller......

Posted

For the money spent to allow them to enter Canadian service, we could have built several AFSBs like USNS Chesty Puller......

See, for what Canada does, this, or a Mistral type ship built for us, would be useful. Of course then, we probably need AAD.

Posted

Good old Chesty. Bloody Ridge and such.

I agree...or build our own. But like 'dog-fighting', there is no 2nd place in the warship biz. We had better build good ones armed to the teeth.

That's the spirit....build good ones because they need to last a long time. Damn the bean counters....full speed ahead !

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

For what we do, the reality is, we may not need AAD. Self defence systems for each of the major combatants, as we have right now, is probably enough.

Not if we ever envision ourselves operating in a medium threat environment......see INS Hanit.

Note that if it were up to me, we'd be getting a larger number of more capable ships, no matter the cost - I'm dealing in reality. No matter who is in power when these are built, it looks like we're going to have to sacrifice something. What Canada does, for the most part, requires combatants, but not AAD.

Ahh no, what Canada has done operationally, since the Halifax class entered service, could have been done with the USCG's National Security Cutters........we have/had combatants in case of war, where sending naval forces abroad without a modern area air defense capability would be criminal........without an AAD capability, we're at the mercy of every third world tin-pot with a former Soviet Missile boat armed with supersonic anti ship missiles.

As such, if this Government is not prepared to invest in modern defensive capacities for our navy, we'd be better off cutting our losses and build a second batch of AOPS and call it a day.....

Posted

As such, if this Government is not prepared to invest in modern defensive capacities for our navy, we'd be better off cutting our losses and build a second batch of AOPS and call it a day.....

Oh...I get it...build Q-ships like in WW2. Sneaky AOPS that are heavily armed....I like it !

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

without an AAD capability, we're at the mercy of every third world tin-pot with a former Soviet Missile boat armed with supersonic anti ship missiles.

We do that all the time now, without AAD. If we're in a shooting war, we're probably not going to be in it alone. If we're not willing to put more money into the program, AAD is the obvious cut if you want to save a great deal of money.

Posted

I'm thinking something faster, and lighter...and far better armed.

Why? That's what the helicopter is for.......and why would it need to be better armed to fend off drug smugglers and poachers?

Posted

We do that all the time now, without AAD. If we're in a shooting war, we're probably not going to be in it alone. If we're not willing to put more money into the program, AAD is the obvious cut if you want to save a great deal of money.

We've been shot at with supersonic missiles? If we're in a shooting war, we can provide trainers and warm blankets, and be smug in the knowledge that we've saved billions.........

The obvious cut is dependent on who decides......the RCN would sacrifice GP frigate numbers over modern AAD.

Posted

What about Red China and Russia who are bound to cause Canada a few issues over territory in the future? A coastguard cutter with a deck gun might not impress them. Something that can drop a pill on 'em is the language they understand.

Well no, it wouldn't impress them........but this thought exercise is on Canada not being able to afford a modern navy.

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
      10,929
    • Most Online
      1,878

    Newest Member
    BTDT
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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